Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Faculty ideals and universities' third mission T

a,b,⁎ a a
Mark Freel , Ajax Persaud , Tyler Chamberlin
a
Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Ave E, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
b
Lancaster University Management School, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK

ARTICLE INFO

Accepted by: Vincent Mangematin

1. Introduction frequently neglect the “nuanced differences in the goals, motives and
experiences of academic scientists”. This echoes earlier concerns that a
Although ideological debate continues over the merits of what Paul more developed understanding of university scientists is missing from
David (David, 2002) has called the ‘economic instrumentalism’ that conversations around universities' third missions (Jain et al., 2009).
characterises contemporary science and technology policy discussions, Although Etzkowitz (2002) famously observed MIT scientists' attitudes
there can be little doubt that the ‘entrepreneurial university’ is “in to entrepreneurial science evolving from opposition, to acquiescence, to
vogue” (D'este and Perkmann, 2011, p. 316). Indeed, and despite on- acceptance, many recent studies continue to highlight the persistence of
going conceptual and practical ambiguities (Sam and Van Der Sijde, different perspectives on the third mission within universities (Philpott
2014), at least one prominent observer has gone further, arguing that et al., 2011). Despite reforms to increase their ‘manageability’ (de la
the role of universities continues to evolve: through the entrepreneurial Torre et al., 2018), most universities remain comparatively flat orga-
university towards the university for the entrepreneurial society nisations (Benneworth et al., 2015). Universities are professional bu-
(Audretsch, 2014). Here the emphasis is broadened beyond technology reaucracies; reliant upon highly skilled employees conditioned to ex-
transfer and academic spin-offs, to the provision of leadership, crea- ercise initiative and cherish autonomy (Perkmann et al., 2013).1
tivity and the enhancement of ‘entrepreneurial capital’ in society at Reassuringly, empirical work on academic entrepreneurship, spe-
large. This is a particular spin on the more familiar concept of a ‘third cifically, and universities' third missions, more generally, has increas-
mission’, centred broadly on universities' contributions to socio-eco- ingly adopted a micro focus; taking the individual university scientist as
nomic development (Koryakina et al., 2015). the unit of analysis. This work has shed light on, inter alia, the role of
Of course, a larger part of university science has always both been prior experience, seniority, age, gender, research focus and academic
driven by the pursuit of basic understanding and inspired by con- discipline on engagement in third mission activities (e.g. Abreu and
siderations of use (Loi and Di Guardo, 2015). It is the institutionalising Grinevich, 2012; Clarysse et al., 2011; D'este and Perkmann, 2011;
of universities' third missions that is a more recent phenomenon (Rolfo Haeussler and Colyvas, 2011). That is, it has been concerned with
and Finardi, 2014); accelerated by increased funding pressures and propensities towards action. However, we believe that an important
growing managerialism, and a by a broader attachment to the en- prior step has had limited consideration. In line with the theory of
trepreneurial zeitgeist. In this, ‘knowledge capitalization’ is placed on planned behaviour (TPB), it is likely that academics' attitudes towards
par with knowledge production and dissemination (Goldstein, 2010) the evolving role of universities predict intentions and actions
and universities are positioned as “engines of economic growth” (Goethner et al., 2012; Hmieleski and Powell, 2018). As Mangematin
(Tartari et al., 2014). et al. (2014, p. 9) observe, “…academia needs scholars who are willing
Yet, while policy-makers and university administrators appear to take risks, who have visions and expectations, and who are able to
unified in their conviction, the returns to the third mission may be best shape organisations to enact the environment”. Yet, studies of aca-
characterised as inconsistent. In this light, Hmieleski and Powell (2018, demics' attitudes are relatively rare. Where they exist, the tendency is to
p. 44) point to the top down nature of many initiatives, which conflate motivation with attitude (e.g. Iorio et al., 2017; Lam, 2011).

Corresponding author at: Lancaster University Management School, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK.
⁎

E-mail address: freel@telfer.uottawa.ca (M. Freel).

1
Of course, this is not a universal perspective. For instance, in a recent polemic, Oleksiyenko (2018, p.193) charges that “In the quest to bring down the ‘ivory
tower’ as advocated by the ‘knowledge factory’ designers of the 1990s, the managers of the global neoliberal economy have largely succeeded in creating, in their
parlance, ‘knowledge workers’ who are tireless, compliant and expendable”.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.06.019
Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 7 June 2019; Accepted 30 June 2019
0040-1625/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Although these studies have been important in differentiating extrinsic with Bruneel et al. (2010), for example, arguing that academics' ac-
and intrinsic motivations, the broader issue of academic ‘identity’ has ceptance of lower wages is indicative of intrinsic motivation and Horta
been less closely studied. and Santos (2016, 1245) identifying scientific ambition and peer re-
It is common to draw a distinction between the ‘traditional’ scien- cognition as the key drivers for “most researchers”. In general terms,
tist, committed to ‘Mertonian’ norms of open science, and the ‘en- this is consistent with evidence, at both the individual and institutional
trepreneurial’ scientist, aligned more closely with third mission ideals levels, of the continuing primacy of the first and second (teaching and
(e.g. Lam, 2011; Watermeyer, 2015), with the former painted as ob- research) missions over the third mission (e.g. Lockett et al., 2008; Loi
stacles to the development of a consistent third mission. This dichotomy and Di Guardo, 2015).
misrepresents the wide variety of perspective on our campuses From this, some observers have inferred that the rules for academic
(Goldstein, 2010; Jain et al., 2009; Owen-Smith and Powell, 2001). assessment and career progression, which revolve around publications,
Crucially, it sheds limited light on the micro-foundations of relative research funding and teaching, are the primary impediments to greater
attachment to these ideals; with attachment, or acceptance, a key engagement and entrepreneurship (Koryakina et al., 2015). However,
antecedent of engagement (Grimaldi et al., 2011). Understanding the this, in turn, underestimates the strength of a traditional academic
bases of opposition, acquiescence or acceptance is likely to be critical in identity, associated with a commitment to the norms of open science,
progressing both rhetoric and practice associated with university socio- publication and broad-based dissemination. In this vein, Hmieleski and
economic engagement. Powell (2018, p. 59) reflect on extensive evidence of “…the desire of
To this end, the current study takes advantage of extensive data scientists to maintain their professional identity – the beliefs, concep-
collected as part of the Survey of Knowledge Exchange Activity by UK tions, expressions, and qualities that classify a person as being a
Academics (2012–2015)2 (Hughes et al., 2017). While much of the prior member of a particular occupational group – as a traditional academic
literature has examined faculty engagement in third mission activities, rather than a businessperson”. Similarly, Jain, George and Maltarich
we examine a prior step. That is, our concern is with faculty attitudes (2009, p. 924) contemplate the sacrifice involved in assuming an en-
towards the broader implications of a university third mission. In this, trepreneurial identity in terms of the loss of a prior identity that is
we explore the career profiles, personal characteristics and perspectives “cherished, and stable”. Watermeyer (2015, p. 334) goes further; in-
on career development that associate with a commitment to third dicating that respondents in his study of UK academics believed that
mission principles and, in the converse, we identify those academics public engagement “had diluted and despoiled their reputation as re-
least attached to the third mission. This study makes a significant em- searchers”. Indeed, the emergence of the ‘engaged’ university has seen
pirical contribution to the third mission literature and to policies and identity crises manifest at the institutional as well as the individual
practices of third mission. We observe a dearth of studies focusing on level (Chantler, 2016). In short, it is not career structures and reward
the micro-foundations of the third mission, particularly regarding the systems, per se, that impede acceptance of the third mission. Rather,
dispositions of the key actors, viz. individual faculty members. This there remains resistance from many academics to the ideology of the
study contributes to filling this need. To the extent that third mission third mission (D'este and Perkmann, 2011). Indeed, Goldstein (2010, p.
activities are undertaken by individual faculty members (Cesaroni & 107) suggests that a “substantial majority of faculty in the humanities
Piccaluga, 2016), understanding their attitudes towards the evolving and social sciences have not ‘acquiesced’ to the entrepreneurial turn”.
role of universities in economic systems will aid in crafting policies and This resistance appears based on fundamental, normative concerns
strategies for successful implementation. The insights from the study about the appropriateness and legitimacy of universities' engagement in
enable a deeper understanding of the profile of faculty members who a broad swathe of activities and the implications for the traditional
are ‘ready and willing’ to contribute to the achievement of third mission Mertonian values of communism, universalism, disinterestedness and
objectives. These insights may be used to guide recruitment, develop- organised skepticism (Merton, 1942). Many commentators believe that
ment, compensation, and incentive policies of universities, the nature of “…there is a fundamental tension in the notion of a third mission. Most
collaboration and interactions with non-academic actors within society, university systems have traditionally drawn their internal and external
and the nature of academic programs offered. The insights may also legitimacies from the fact that their activities were somewhat dis-
help universities overcome the nagging challenge of how best to or- connected or decoupled from societal affairs” (Pinheiro et al., 2015, p.
ganize and manage their third mission activities in order to achieve 227). Coupled with the specific charge that universities' third missions
their objectives. may actually retard the diffusion of valuable knowledge and weaken
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the challenges the quality of basic research (Nelson, 2001), it is hardly surprising that
that the evolution of universities' third mission has placed on academic the third mission is seen by some as a “threat to the purpose of the
identity and the consequences for the success of the third mission university” (Philpott et al., 2011, p. 168).
agenda. We draw on an extensive empirical literature on the micro- Given continued ambivalence towards the third mission and its
foundations of academic entrepreneurship to develop hypotheses on the basis in the mindsets of the variety of academics on campus (Jain et al.,
foundations of perspectives on the role of universities; section 3 provide 2009), we begin by constructing hypotheses that seek to understand the
further details on the survey and outlines our approach to analyses; sources of antipathetic dispositions. In doing this, we borrow from the
section 4 presents the results of our analyses; finally, section 5 reflects extensive empirical literature that has examined the micro-foundations
on the implications of our findings for academics, university adminis- of academic entrepreneurship. Our contention is that this work has
trators and policy makers. elided an important step. The work we draw on has largely considered
only the direct effects of human capital and economic variables in sti-
mulating engagement (Goethner et al., 2012). That is, it has been
2. Academic identity and perceptions on the role of the university
concerned with how various antecedent characteristics are manifest in
third mission behaviours. However, it is likely that these antecedents
In general terms, recent empirical evidence suggests that academic
first shape attitudes and social norms that, subject to perceived control,
scientists are more motivated by academic accolades than by pecuniary
shape intentions and actions in turn. And, where they do not, this im-
rewards (Hmieleski and Powell, 2018). In Lam's (2011) terms, they
plicates impediments to action that may be germane. By exploring
prefer ‘ribbons’ and ‘puzzles’ to ‘gold’. The literature is fairly consistent
dispositions (i.e. proclivities rather than propensities), we believe that
in establishing the prevalence of intrinsic over extrinsic motivations;
this approach contributes to “a better understanding of the psycholo-
gical foundations of university science commercialization” (Hmieleski
2
Our thanks go the UK Data Service and to the Centre for Business Research and Powell, 2018, p. 44) and allows us to nudge the discussion forward.
at the University of Cambridge for access to the survey data. As “uncertain and transitional” funding environments increasingly

11
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

require key scholars to adopt strategic postures that balance “con- rather than knowledge transfer or commercialisation (Carayol, 2007;
formance and a longiness for scientific freedom” (O'kane et al., 2015, p. Link et al., 2007). Whether this is about attitude or expediency is less
201), a more developed understanding of acceptance of the former and clear. And, of course, that is apropos our current concerns. An alter-
strength of attachment to the latter will be invaluable. native approach may be to articulate the issue in terms of resources and
opportunities. In this perspective, junior and younger academics may
2.1. Disciplinary considerations be more open to the third mission (Ambos et al., 2008), but their lack of
experience, human capital and reputation retard their engagement.
Perhaps the most consistent observation in the empirical literature Although they are more likely to have been “socialised into the emer-
reflects on the substantial variety in the extent of external engagement ging entrepreneurial paradigm” (Lam, 2011), the precarious nature of
across academic disciplines (Abreu and Grinevich, 2012; Bekkers and an early stage academic career and the requirements of tenure and early
Bodas Freitas, 2008). In general terms, the evidence suggests that progression work against external engagement. In contrast, older and
academics in engineering, the life sciences and the physical sciences are more senior academics operate in wider networks, control more orga-
more likely to have engaged in third mission activities than are aca- nisational resources and have more freedom to engage in third mission
demics in the social sciences or, in particular, the humanities activities (Tartari et al., 2012; Tartari et al., 2014). This leads junior
(Goldstein, 2010). However, this engagement may, in turn, be reflective scientists to act, at best, as project managers, with more senior collea-
of systematic differences in motivation across disciplines (Cunningham gues taking on the role of scientific entrepreneur by bring about new
et al., 2016; Sauermann et al., 2010). An academic's discipline estab- combinations of knowledge and resources (Casati and Genet, 2014).
lishes an important context that reflects common work practices and Accordingly, and despite general evidence of a higher propensity to
ways of knowing. It also shapes attitudes and inclinations towards external engagement associated with increasing age and rank, we draw
‘entrepreneurial science’ (D'Este and Patel, 2007; Lam, 2011). Accord- on evidence that the relative attractiveness of engagement decreases
ingly, and despite suggestions that universities' traditional focus on a with scientists' age and rank (Bercovitz and Feldman, 2008; Fritsch and
narrow group of disciplines may represent a missed opportunity Krabel, 2012), to hypothesise that:
(Hmieleski and Powell, 2018), we hypothesise that:
H3. Pro third mission attitudes are likely to be least common among
H1. Pro third mission attitudes are likely to be least common among older and more senior academics and most common among younger
faculty members in the humanities and most common in engineering, and more junior academics.
health and the physical sciences.
2.4. Gender
2.2. Research focus
A usual suspect in the literature on academic entrepreneurship is the
In a rather straightforward argument, we anticipate that academics issue of gender. Here it is typical to observe both a lower incidence of
engaged in applied or user-inspired research are more likely to hold entrepreneurship, either narrowly or broadly defined, and, more oc-
attitudes towards the role of the university that is consistent with third casionally a lower proclivity to entrepreneurship on the part of female
mission ideals. This is research in Pasteur's Quadrant (Stokes, 1997); academics (Hmieleski and Powell, 2018). For instance, Haeussler and
inspired by considerations of use as well as by basic understanding. It is Colyvas (2011) find that women in the life sciences are less likely than
for this reason that Stephan et al. (2007) observe higher patenting rates men to either patent or found a business. On the softer side of en-
in medical schools and among engineers – beyond disciplinary con- trepreneurship, Grimpe and Fier (2010), in their study of German and
siderations. To paraphrase Calderini, Franzoni, and Vezzulli (2007. p. American university scientists, observe that female scientists were sig-
317), it would not be particularly surprising to find that scientists nificantly less likely to engage in informal technology transfer activities
working on applied or user-inspired research would be more likely to than were male scientists. Both these patterns are confirmed by Abreu
associate with third mission ideals than those working on basic re- and Grinevich (2012). While Colyvas et al. (2012) argue that gender
search. Certainly, such a finding would be consistent with revealed differences in engagement are largely explained by differences in
behaviours. Abreu and Grinevich (2012), for instance, using data from publication record, history of funding and rank, such that the issue is
the 2008 iteration of this survey, observe that academics identifying as one of resources and opportunities rather than disposition, the general
engaged in user-inspired basic research or applied research were more tenor of the literature is in the opposite direction. In this vein, Abreu
likely to engage in a broad range of ‘entrepreneurial’ activities than and Grinevich (2017) note arguments that female academics face
those identifying as engaged in basic research. However, it also speaks greater pressures to balance tenure requirements and family responsi-
to the extent that “some academics are attitudinally predisposed to bilities; they have less commercial experience; and, are less likely to
commercialise their findings or possess prior knowledge that makes belong to networks that include industrial partners. On balance, this
them more capable of recognizing entrepreneurial opportunity” leads us to hypothesise that:
(Cunningham et al., 2016, p. 784; see also Jain et al., 2009). Accord-
H4. Female academics are less likely to be attached to third mission
ingly, we hypothesis that:
ideals.
H2. Pro third mission attitudes are likely to be most common among
faculty members engaged in applied or user-inspired basic research.
2.5. Experience

2.3. Rank and age In the academic entrepreneurship literature, it is common to point
to the association between prior entrepreneurial experience and en-
The literature on academic entrepreneurship often conflates issues gagement in academic entrepreneurship (Hoye and Pries, 2009; Krabel
of seniority and age, with the terms “junior” and “younger” used in- and Mueller, 2009). This is the notion that academic entrepreneurship
terchangeably (Tartari et al., 2014). Following this, the general evi- occurs at the boundaries of different scientific and professional ex-
dence is that younger and more junior scientists are less likely to engage periences (Guerrero et al., 2015). In this vein, Abreu and Grinevich
in technology transfer or entrepreneurial activities (Lam, 2011). How- (2012), for instance, find that having owned a small company in the
ever, the rationalisation of this finding is less settled. For instance, some past also positively associates with engagement in softer forms of aca-
authors draw on life cycle models of academic careers to suggest that demic engagement. More generally, prior work experience outside of a
the career focus of early stage academics is on publishing and teaching university environment is taken “as a marker of useful human capital

12
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

for science commercialisation” (Hmieleski and Powell, 2018, p. 56; see respondents, and complete and incomplete respondents. The results
also Shane et al., 2015). Analogously, Dietz and Bozeman (2005) ob- suggested small quantitative differences indicative of “a small upward
serve that academics who had spent a larger part of their careers in bias…in the estimated level of interactions with external organisations”
industry attracted more funding and registered more patents. All of this (Hughes et al., 2016, p. 98). The survey team also compared the sample
speaks to propensities to engage in third mission activities. We extra- frame and respondents with aggregate data on the population of UK
polate from this and anticipate that experience working with the academics available from the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency.
challenges of industry and with society outside of the university will The analysis suggests that respondents over-represent professors4 and
associate with great sympathy for the ideals of the third mission and we academics over the age of 50, and underrepresent academics in the arts
hypothesise that: and humanities. The implication is, again, a likely upward bias in the
extent of engagement in academic entrepreneurship and external
H5. Academics who have no experience of working outside of the
knowledge exchange.
university environment are less likely to be attached to third mission
ideals.
3.1. Measures
2.6. Incentives
Our dependent variables are constructed from responses to a ques-
tion that asks respondents the extent to which they agree or disagree
Our final concern is with academic incentives. As noted above,
with a series of 7 “…statements about relationships between higher
prevailing university incentives are frequently portrayed as significant
education institutions and external organisations”, on a 5 point scale
barriers to the advancement of the third mission (Koryakina et al.,
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This was the final
2015). Simply put, in the traditional academic model publication is the
question (Q.43) in a questionnaire concerned with various forms of
primary signal of achievement. Teaching may be valued to varying
external engagement and knowledge exchange. In order, the statements
degrees at various institutions, but third mission activities fall far be-
were:
hind. This creates a challenge for the advancement of the third mission
which requires that “specific motivations to do KTT activities should be
1. Academia should focus on basic research and should not be con-
coherent with the general motivations that university scientists have in
cerned with its actual or potential application (“Basic Research”).
their job” (Labory et al., 2015, p. 5). In line with our present purpose,
2. Academic freedom is of fundamental importance to the future
Lam (2011) reflects on the implications of self-determination theory
wellbeing of society (“Academic Freedom”).
and argues that the manner in which academic scientists respond to
3. Higher education has a key role to play in increasing the competi-
different kinds of incentives is influenced by the degree of congruence
tiveness of business in the UK (“Competitiveness”).
between their personal values and the targeted activity. Moreover, in-
4. The main purpose of university teaching should be to prepare stu-
dividual academic's attitudes towards behaviours and achievement are
dents for the labour market (“Labour Market”).
likely to be highly influenced by prevailing local norms (Tartari et al.,
5. UK business does not have the capacity to use research effectively
2014). These, in turn, are likely to be manifest in institutional rewards
(“Capacity”).
systems. This leads us to hypothesise that:
6. Over the past few years, universities have gone too far in attempting
H6. Academics who believe that their university primarily rewards to meet the needs of industry to the detriment of their teaching and
research and, to a lesser extent, teaching are less likely to be attached to research roles (“Too Much”).
third mission ideals. 7. Over the past few years universities have done too little to increase
their relevance to society or contribution to economic development
(“Too Little”).
3. Data and measures
The distribution of responses to this question is displayed in Fig. 1.
Our analysis draws on data from the Survey of Knowledge Exchange The largest proportion of academics are strongly supportive of the
Activity by UK Academics (2012–2015). The design of the survey fol- importance of academic freedom and the smallest proportion are sup-
lowed a previous round in 2009. Data from this previous survey have portive of the notion that academic research ought to be aloof from
allowed researchers to make important contributions to our under- application. However, there is considerable variety in responses, with
standing of academic engagement and entrepreneurship (e.g. Abreu some academics in strong agreement and some in strong disagreement
et al., 2016; Abreu and Grinevich, 2012, 2014; Abreu and Grinevich, with each of the statements, in line with evidence of persistent variety
2017). in attitudes towards the third mission on campuses (Philpott et al.,
Details on the survey design, survey methodology and broad pat- 2011). Importantly, while we examine the antecedents of agreement
terns of responses are reported in Hughes et al. (2016). In broad terms, with each of these statements in turn, we believe that relative agree-
140,312 UK academics were surveyed via email in waves of 10,000 ment with items 1, 2 and 6 is indicative of reticence towards third
between March and September 2015. After excluding ‘undeliverable’ mission ideals. In contrast, relative agreement with items 3, 4 and 7
and ‘ineligible’ responses, a final eligible sample of 131,088 academics may indicate greater enthusiasm for a more utilitarian view of uni-
remained. In addition to the initial invitation to participate, each po- versities and for third mission ideals. Item 5 seems more difficult to
tential respondent received email prompts after 10 days, and after a interpret. Indeed, simple correlation analysis supports our intuition that
further 7 days. From this, 18,177 complete responses were received (a item 5 doesn't correlate with either a pro- or anti-mission disposition.
response rate of 13.9%3). Moreover, factor analysis returns a single unrotated factor solution,
While the invitation email indicated that the survey team were in- with items 1, 2 and 6 loading positively and items 3, 4 and 7 loading
terested in responses regardless of whether the individual academic had negatively.5 Following this we construct a simple summary variable by
engaged in interactions with external organisations, it is clearly possible
that the likelihood of responding may be related to experience with
4
engagement. To explore bias, the survey team compared early and late In the UK it is still common for academic ranks to be designated as professor,
senior lecturer and lecturer. These are broadly equivalent to full professor,
associate professor and assistant professor. Since the survey is of UK academics,
3
162 students also provided complete responses and there were a further we employ the former language.
5
6633 incomplete responses. These have been set aside. See Appendix A 1 for these elementary analyses.

13
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Too Li"le

Too Much

Capacity

Labour Market

Compe!!veness

Academic Freedom

Basic Research

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither Somewhat agree Strongly agree

Fig. 1. Attitudes towards the ‘Third Mission’.

summing items 3, 4 and 7 and the inverse (i.e. 6-xi, where xi is the presents the results of our three ‘pro-mission’ statements and our
response to a specific item by respondent i) of items 1, 2 and 6. This composite measure. Table 2b also records variance inflations factors
variable may range from 6 to 30 and we take it to indicate relative estimated on the OLS model. The magnitudes of these give no cause for
disposition towards the notion of a university third mission.6 This, then, concern with respect to multicollinearity. For space reasons, we do not
becomes our eighth dependent variable. report a simple correlation matrix. However, unremarkably, the largest
We are fortunate that the survey records a range of information on pairwise correlation is between age and rank: Spearman's rho of
what might be interpreted broadly as the human capital of respondents. −0.5108. No other pairwise correlations exceed 0.3 (or 10% of shared
We believe that these data allow us to construct a credible model of variance).7
faculty attitudes and to test our hypotheses. Descriptive statistics for For the ordered logit models, we report odds ratios. These are ob-
these independent variables are recorded in Table 1. In addition, the tained by exponenting the ordered logit coefficients. These are inter-
survey provides information on academics' perceptions of the factors preted as the effect of a one-unit change on the predictor variable of the
that influence career advancement. Specifically, respondents were odds of being in group greater than k versus the odds of being in group
asked to rate 5 factors on a 5-point scale, ranging from “completely less than or equal to k, where k is the response on the dependent
unimportant” to “very important”. The relative strength of these factors variable. In simple terms, odds ratios of greater than 1 are indicative or
is likely to indicate important local norms that will, in turn, influence stronger agreement, those less than 1 are indicative of weaker agree-
attitudes (Tartari et al., 2014). These data are displayed in Fig. 2. The ment.
primacy of research is evident (Lockett et al., 2008), as is the existence Our first hypothesis anticipated disciplinary variations in attitudes
of variety. Although research is considered to be “important” or “very towards the role of universities. Specifically, we expected faculty
important” for career advancement and promotion by a little over 90% members in the arts and humanities to be least attached to ideals that
of the sample, other factors appear to ‘matter’ to different extents. In are consistent with the third mission, while faculty in engineering,
our analyses, we create 5 dummy variables coded a ‘1’ if the respondent health and the physical sciences would be most likely to be pro-third
considers that factor to be either “important” or “very important” and mission. Our results largely confirm this hypothesis. In our estimations,
‘0’ otherwise. social scientists are our reference group. Faculty members in the arts
and humanities were significantly most likely to agree with our three
4. Results ‘anti-mission’ statements (Table 2a) and significantly least likely to
agree with the three ‘pro-mission’ statements (Table 2b). This is also
To test our hypotheses, we estimate a series of 7 ordered logit re- reflected in the final regression on the composite measure, where being
gressions, 1 for each of the attitudinal statements outlined above. We an arts and humanities faculty member is significantly negatively as-
also estimate a simple OLS of our third mission composite variable. The sociated with a positive disposition towards third mission ideals. The
results of these estimations are recorded in Tables 2a and 2b. For ex- opposite pattern is broadly apparent for faculty members in health,
position purposes, Table 2a presents the results of our three ‘anti-mis- biology and chemistry and engineering; with engineering faculty, in
sion’ statements and our neutral statement (“Capacity”), while Table 2b particular, more likely to believe in universities' contribution to

6 7
Item 5 is set aside, since it appears to correlate poorly with the other items. The exception is the variables concerning perceptions of career advance-
The results are largely the same when we repeating our analysis with item 5 ment influencers. Here teaching and administration have a pairwise correlation
included. These are not reported here, given space constraints, but are available of 0.525, while working with business and working with community has a
from the authors on request. pairwise correlation of 0.499. Neither or these give cause for concern.

14
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
Discipline Research focus Position

Health Science 18.63% No research 6.40% Retired 4.09%

Bio & Chemistry 13.17% Basic 24.61% Full Professor 18.96%

Physics and Maths 13.33% User-inspired basic 24.41% Associate Professor 31.74%
Engineering 7.75% Applied 40.38% Assistant Professor 21.84%
Social Sciences 30.81% Other 4.20% Research Fellow 18.22%
Arts & Humanities 16.31% Research Assistant 3.06%
Teaching Fellow 2.10%
N = 16,717 N = 18,117 N = 18,117

Gender Experience Age

Male 58.06% SME 24.68% Under 30 4.36%

Female 41.93% Entrepreneur 15.22% 30–39 27.09%
Large Company 22.90% 40–49 26.74%
Public Sector 28.64% 50 and over 40.87%
Charity 12.33%
N = 18,176 N = 18,177 N = 18,008

Work with community

Work with business

Research

Administra on

Teaching

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Completely unimportant Unimportant Neither Important Very Important

Fig. 2. Factors influencing career advancement.

competitiveness and to labour markets and with the statement that they regression on third mission attitudes.
have done too little to increase their relevance and usefulness. This is, However, our estimations also reveal an intriguing finding. Our
again, reflected in our composite third mission regression. categorisation includes those faculty members not engaged in research
Our second hypothesis concerned the influence of research focus on (6.4% of the sample). This group is typically ignored in discussions of
attitudes. Here we anticipated that applied and user-inspired research the third mission. Yet they appear, on balance, more pro-mission than
would associate with a stronger attachment to pro-mission consistent even those scientists engaged in applied research. Their neglect in third
ideals. Again, with applied research as our reference category, this is mission narratives may relate to the tendency for both research and
broadly what we find. Faculty members engaged in basic research were practice on academic entrepreneurship, specifically, and knowledge
consistently most likely to agree with our ‘anti-mission’ statements and transfer, more generally, to concentrate on a select group of scientists,
consistently least likely to agree with our ‘pro-mission’ statements. in specific faculties, often engaged in funded research. But it may hint
Indeed, a similar, though weaker, pattern was observed for user-in- at underutilised capacity and we return to this issue in our discussions.
spired and ‘other’ researchers. In short, and as hypothesised, faculty Our third hypothesis was concerned with age and rank. Here we
engaged in applied research are significantly more likely to hold pro- anticipated that younger and more junior academics would be more
mission attitudes. As expected, this is also reflected in the composite pro-mission. In our estimations, we find no clear evidence to support

15
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Table 2a
Ordered logit estimations of attachment to ideals.
Variable 1. Basic research 2. Academic freedom 6. Too far 5. Capacity

Discipline
Medicine 0.774 (0.035)⁎⁎⁎ 0.676 (0.033)⁎⁎⁎ 0.832 (0.036)⁎⁎⁎ 0.937 (0.042)
Bio&Chem 1.274 (0.064)⁎⁎⁎ 0.759 (0.043)⁎⁎⁎ 0.842 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎ 0.918 (0.047)⁎
Phys&Math 1.630 (0.081)⁎⁎⁎ 0.922 (0.054) 0.935 (0.047) 1.027 (0.052)
Engineering 1.272 (0.078)⁎⁎⁎ 0.608 (0.041)⁎⁎⁎ 0.779 (0.048)⁎⁎⁎ 1.308 (0.835)⁎⁎⁎
Arts 1.666 (0.076)⁎⁎⁎ 1.481 (0.086)⁎⁎⁎ 1.659 (0.076)⁎⁎⁎ 0.920 (0.042)⁎
Position
Retired 1.216 (0.099)b 1.412 (0.143)⁎⁎⁎ 0.907 (0.073) 1.288 (0.106)⁎⁎
Full Professor 0.805 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎ 1.280 (0.078)⁎⁎⁎ 0.697 (0.035)⁎⁎⁎ 1.182 (0.061)⁎⁎⁎
Assoc. Professor 0.908 (0.038)⁎⁎ 1.064 (0.051) 0.888 (0.037)⁎⁎ 1.057 (0.044)
Research Fellow 0.909 (0.044)⁎⁎ 0.930 (0.050) 0.873 (0.041)⁎⁎ 0.994 (0.048)
Research Assist. 0.871 (0.081) 0.829 (0.082)⁎ 0.925 (0.082) 1.005 (0.092)
Teaching Fellow 0.821 (0.090)⁎ 0.887 (0.105) 0.899 (0.094) 0.983 (0.103)
Research focus
No research 1.338 (0.089)⁎⁎⁎ 0.648 (0.045)⁎⁎⁎ 0.867 (0.056)⁎⁎ 0.889 (0.059)⁎
Basic 4.422 (0.182)⁎⁎⁎ 1.773 (0.086)⁎⁎⁎ 2.220 (0.089)⁎⁎⁎ 1.061 (0.043)
User-inspired 1.975 (0.076)⁎⁎⁎ 1.438 (0.063)⁎⁎⁎ 1.478 (0.056)⁎⁎⁎ 1.146 (0.044)⁎⁎⁎
Other 2.276 (0.169)⁎⁎⁎ 0.993 (0.087) 1.428 (0.107)⁎⁎⁎ 1.005 (0.075)
Age
Under 30 0.751 (0.062)⁎⁎⁎ 0.579 (0.051)⁎⁎⁎ 0.907 (0.072) 0.605 (0.050)⁎⁎⁎
30–39 0.889 (0.039)⁎⁎ 0.886 (0.044)⁎⁎ 0.697 (0.035) 0.693 (0.030)⁎⁎⁎
40–49 0.912 (0.035)⁎⁎ 0.881 (0.039)⁎⁎ 1.004 (0.038) 0.867 (0.033)⁎⁎⁎
Gender
Female 0.759 (0.024)⁎⁎⁎ 0.775 (0.028)⁎⁎⁎ 0.986 (0.030) 0.875 (0.028)⁎⁎⁎
Experience
SME 0.921 (0.033)⁎⁎ 0.928 (0.038)⁎ 0.936 (0.033)⁎ 0.957 (0.035)
Entrepreneur 0.749 (0.033)⁎⁎⁎ 1.012 (0.049) 0.728 (0.031)⁎⁎⁎ 1.160 (0.050)⁎⁎⁎
Large firm 0.899 (0.303)⁎⁎ 0.843 (0.034)⁎⁎⁎ 0.732 (0.026)⁎⁎⁎ 1.147 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎
PSO 0.844 (0.032)⁎⁎⁎ 0.844 (0.032)⁎⁎⁎ 0.978 (0.032) 0.996 (0.038)
Charity 0.955 (0.044) 1.160 (0.061)⁎⁎ 1.228 (0.054)⁎⁎⁎ 0.968 (0.046)
Incentives
Teaching 0.901 (0.030)⁎⁎⁎ 0.927 (0.036)⁎ 0.772 (0.026)⁎⁎⁎ 0.879 (0.030)⁎⁎⁎
Administration 1.022 (0.034) 1.168 (0.045)⁎⁎⁎ 1.153 (0.038)⁎⁎⁎ 0.971 (0.033)
Research 0.878 (0.043)⁎⁎ 1.210 (0.068)⁎⁎⁎ 0.685 (0.034)⁎⁎⁎ 0.773 (0.039)⁎⁎⁎
Business 0.947 (0.031) 1.015 (0.039) 1.267 (0.041)⁎⁎⁎ 0.979 (0.033)
Community 0.896 (0.033)⁎⁎ 0.978 (0.041) 0.908 (0.033)⁎⁎ 0.919 (0.034)⁎⁎
LR χ2 2889.67 1049.95 1391.79 438.47
N 15,945 15,945 15,945 15,945

Odds ratios and coefficients in parenthesis. Superscripts ,

⁎⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
and ⁎
indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.

this hypothesis. In our composite third mission estimation, there is or have done too little to make themselves relevant to society.
tentative evidence that the youngest academics are more likely to hold On the balance of a large empirical literature that suggests that
pro-mission attitudes. However, those between 30 and 39 years old are female academics are less likely to engage in a broad range of en-
tentatively indicated to hold less pro-mission attitudes. Examining the trepreneurial and commercial activities (Hmieleski and Powell, 2018),
estimations on each individual statement, it would seem that this is our fourth hypothesis anticipated that female academics would be less
largely driven by generally lower strength of belief in younger aca- likely to espouse attachment to third mission ideals. Our evidence re-
demics. Younger academics are consistently less likely to hold the jects this hypothesis. Indeed, it would seem that female academics are
strongest beliefs on academic freedom and basic research, but also on more likely to hold strong pro-mission ideals. This is shown in the
the role of universities in competitiveness. It is not that younger aca- composite measure regression and in the individual statement regres-
demics are more or less likely to associate with third mission ideals. sions. Holding other factors constant, female academics are less likely
Rather, they are less likely to hold strong and entrenched views. to hold the strongest views on basic research or academic freedom; and
Our findings are similarly inconclusive on the issue of rank. The most likely to hold the strongest views on the role of universities in
composite model does offer a weak indication that retired academics preparing students for labour markets. Set against this, female aca-
are less likely to be pro-mission, while the most junior of staff (those on demics are also less likely to strongly believe in the importance of
temporary teaching only contracts) are more likely to be pro-mission. higher education for competitiveness. Based on an analysis of statement
These groups represent around 4% and 2% of the sample respectively 6 (“too far”) from the 2009 iteration of this survey, Abreu and
and the reference group is lecturers/assistant professors. This latter Grinevich (2017) suggest that female academics are more ambivalent,
group, almost 22% of the sample, were the real focus of our hypothesis. rather than more antipathetic, than male academics on the issue or
It is in this group that we anticipated that the literature on academic research commercialisation. Our findings may be interpreted in a si-
entrepreneurship and engagement confused propensity with proclivity, milar manner. However, they also indicate the potential misalignment
and that more junior academics were more likely to hold pro-mission of attitudes and opportunities and of unexploited capacity. We return to
beliefs (Ambos et al., 2008). However, as with age, we find no support this issue in or discussions.
for this hypothesis. Again, examination of the individual statement Our fifth hypothesis concerned the role of external experience in
estimations suggests that lecturers simply hold less strong beliefs, in fostering pro third mission attitudes. Our evidence overwhelmingly
relation to professors in particular. For instance, professors are shown supports the hypothesis. Prior experiences as an entrepreneur, in a large
to more strongly believe in the primacy of academic freedom and in the firm and in a SME are all positively associated with our composite
centrality of higher education to competitiveness; and to less strongly measure. They are all also positively associated with the individual pro-
believe that universities have gone too far to meet the needs of industry mission items and negatively associated with the anti-mission items;

16
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Table 2b
Ordered logit and OLS estimations of attachment to ideals.
Variable 3. Competitiveness 4. Labour markets 7. Too little Third Mission VIF

Discipline
Medicine 1.307 (0.056)⁎⁎⁎ 1.244 (0.056)⁎⁎⁎ 0.898 (0.039)⁎⁎ 0.612 (0.078)⁎⁎⁎ 1.40
Bio&Chem 1.505 (0.073)⁎⁎⁎ 2.116 (0.111)⁎⁎⁎ 0.796 (0.039)⁎⁎⁎ 0.504 (0.088)⁎⁎⁎ 1.35
Phys&Math 1.132 (0.056)⁎⁎ 1.775 (0.922)⁎⁎⁎ 0.701 (0.034)⁎⁎⁎ −0.118 (0.088) 1.35
Engineering 2.053 (0.124)⁎⁎⁎ 2.454 (0.164)⁎⁎⁎ 0.822 (0.050)⁎⁎⁎ 0.897 (0.108)⁎⁎⁎ 1.25
Arts 0.541 (0.025)⁎⁎⁎ 0.769 (0.036)⁎⁎⁎ 0.616 (0.029)⁎⁎⁎ −1.500 (0.081)⁎⁎⁎ 1.38
Position
Retired 0.844 (0.068)⁎⁎ 1.077 (0.091) 0.993 (0.081) −0.246 (0.145)⁎ 1.25
Full Professor 0.784 (0.039)⁎⁎⁎ 1.346 (0.072)⁎⁎⁎ 0.769 (0.039)⁎⁎⁎ 0.086 (0.090) 1.90
Assoc. Professor 0.951 (0.039) 1.130 (0.049)⁎⁎ 0.968 (0.040) 0.110 (0.074) 1.80
Research Fellow 0.847 (0.040)⁎⁎⁎ 0.934 (0.046) 1.078 (0.039) 0.059 (0.085) 1.66
Research Assist. 0.932 (0.083) 0.899 (0.082) 1.148 (0.102) 0.212 (0.161) 1.18
Teaching Fellow 0.995 (0.105) 1.125 (0.123) 1.240 (0.129)⁎⁎ 0.360 (0.189)⁎ 1.11
Research Focus
No research 1.521 (0.100)⁎⁎⁎ 0.934 (0.062) 1.052 (0.037) 0.373 (0.116)⁎⁎⁎ 1.17
Basic 0.656 (0.026)⁎⁎⁎ 0.670 (0.028)⁎⁎⁎ 0.627 (0.025) −2.346 (0.071)⁎⁎⁎ 1.40
User-inspired 0.773 (0.029)⁎⁎⁎ 0.903 (0.036)⁎⁎ 0.790 (0.030) −1.097 (0.067)⁎⁎⁎ 1.26
Other 0.798 (0.059)⁎⁎ 0.681 (0.053)⁎⁎⁎ 0.840 (0.063) −1.141 (0.134)⁎⁎⁎ 1.13
Age
Under 30 0.956 (0.076) 0.677 (0.055)⁎⁎⁎ 1.080 (0.085) 0.272 (0.144)⁎ 1.29
30–39 0.928 (0.039)⁎ 0.779 (0.035)⁎⁎⁎ 0.924 (0.039)⁎ −0.129 (0.076)⁎ 1.76
40–49 1.044 (0.039) 0.899 (0.053)⁎⁎ 0.880 (0.033)⁎⁎ 0.011 (0.067) 1.36
Gender
Female 1.149 (0.035)⁎⁎⁎ 0.742 (0.024)⁎⁎⁎ 1.021 (0.032) 0.257 (0.055)⁎⁎⁎ 1.14
Experience
SME 1.079 (0.038)⁎⁎ 1.128 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎ 1.052 (0.037) 0.230 (0.063)⁎⁎⁎ 1.16
Entrepreneur 1.214 (0.051)⁎⁎⁎ 1.336 (0.060)⁎⁎⁎ 1.269 (0.054)⁎⁎⁎ 0.713 (0.075)⁎⁎⁎ 1.11
Large firm 1.186 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎ 1.205 (0.045)⁎⁎⁎ 1.117 (0.040)⁎⁎ 0.581 (0.064)⁎⁎⁎ 1.11
PSO 0.978 (0.322) 0.944 (0.033)⁎ 1.048 (0.035) 0.174 (0.059)⁎⁎ 1.12
Charity 0.821 (0.036)⁎⁎⁎ 0.755 (0.035)⁎⁎⁎ 1.050 (0.047) −0.308 (0.079)⁎⁎⁎ 1.07
Incentives
Teaching 1.285 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎ 1.232 (0.043)⁎⁎⁎ 0.937 (0.031)⁎⁎ 0.436 (0.059)⁎⁎⁎ 1.32
Administration 0.954 (0.031) 1.028 (0.035) 0.984 (0.032) −0.173 (0.059)⁎⁎ 1.30
Research 0.930 (0.046) 1.050 (0.054) 0.760 (0.037)⁎⁎⁎ 0.022 (0.088) 1.06
Business 1.066 (0.034)⁎⁎ 1.242 (0.042)⁎⁎⁎ 0.852 (0.028)⁎⁎⁎ −0.063 (0.058) 1.29
Community 1.335 (0.048)⁎⁎⁎ 1.156 (0.044)⁎⁎⁎ 0.870 (0.032)⁎⁎⁎ 0.305 (0.065)⁎⁎⁎ 1.34
LR χ2 1454.32 1341.16 760.09
2
R 0.178
N 15,945 15,945 15,945 15,945

Odds ratios and coefficients in parenthesis. Superscripts ,

⁎⁎⁎ ⁎⁎
and ⁎
indicate statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.

with the exception of entrepreneurial experience and belief in academic predictably, these academics most strongly believe in academic
freedom. Here, there is no evidence that academics with en- freedom and least strongly in the notion that industry has insufficient
trepreneurial experience are any less likely to value academic freedom. receptor capacity for academic research. However, they also least
While this requires further exploration, our intuition is that this relates strongly agree with the statements that universities have gone too far to
to the value placed upon independence by entrepreneurs, which has meet industry's needs or have done too little to be relevant to society or
been shown to persist in academic entrepreneurs (Shane, 2004). In- contribute to economic development. Taken as a whole, we believe that
dependence and freedom are proximate concepts in the entrepreneur- the findings on incentives' influence on attitudes serve to underscore
ship literature (e.g. Hessels et al., 2008). One intriguing finding is that the variety of institutions for higher education (Kitagawa et al., 2016;
those who have had experience working for charities or not-for-profits Philpott et al., 2011). Universities are not undifferentiated parts of
are significantly less likely to hold pro-mission attitudes. Since the national systems of innovation, but are frequently specialised to meet
proportion of these individuals is almost as high as those with en- local needs and to contribute to local development objectives (e.g.
trepreneurial experience, this is not a trivial group. Indeed, given the Braunerhjelm, 2008; Wright, 2014). While historically discussion on
increasing interest in social entrepreneurship on campuses (Siegel and academic entrepreneurship have focused on leading universities, star
Wright, 2015), this may be an important group in meeting a broader scientists and a narrow range of activities (e.g. spin-offs, patenting and
entrepreneurial agenda than has typically been formulated. Again, we licencing), Siegel and Wright (2015, p. 585) note a “move to focus on
return to this issue in our discussions. more indirect aspects of academic entrepreneurship, such as social
Finally, we hypothesised that academics working at institutions ventures and commercial start-ups launched by students and alumni, as
where either research or teaching dominated career advancement, well as the transfer of knowledge to existing local businesses”. It is
would be less likely to report attachment to third mission ideals. This is likely that locally or regionally-specialised universities have a greater
the notion that the third mission is being crowded out by universities' role to play here. Again, we return to this issue in closing.
first and second missions (Koryakina et al., 2015). We find no support
for this hypothesis. Indeed, academics who believe that their institution 5. Concluding remarks
values teaching are more likely to hold pro-mission beliefs; both in
composite and across the individual statements. A similar pattern is This study examined faculty attitudes towards ideals that are (in)
observed for those whose institutions reward community engagement. consistent with universities' third mission. Our goal was to better un-
The findings for academics who disproportionately believe that their derstand how different career profiles, personal characteristics, and
institutions value research above other factors are more mixed. Perhaps perspectives on career development explained dispositions towards, or

17
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

away from, third mission principles. Our analyses draw on extensive academic entrepreneurship, and situate this as at the heart of uni-
data collected as part of the Survey of Knowledge Exchange Activity by UK versities' third mission, almost certainly neglect the larger part of en-
Academics (2012–2015) (Hughes et al., 2017). We analysed the data trepreneurial activities undertaken within the higher education system.
using a series of ordered logit regressions of (dis)agreement with seven This narrative leads to the privileging of star scientists and a narrow
statements on the role of universities, and with a simple OLS model range of activities. Of greater concern, it concentrates resources and
where the dependent variable was a composite measure intended to opportunities – both within the higher education system, towards par-
indicate broad sympathy with third mission ideals. ticular ‘types’ of institutions, and within individual universities, to-
Our results reveal several intriguing insights. In line with prior work wards particular individuals and activities. And it is not clear that such
(Goldstein, 2010), we observe a heterogeneity of faculty attitudes to- concentration inevitably results in the greatest social or economic gains
wards the third mission. Perhaps most notably, we observe that faculty (Audia and Goncalo, 2007; O'kane et al., 2015).
members who are not engaged in research, and who are often over- In this light, one might argue that resources and opportunities dis-
looked in discussions of the third mission, appear more pro-mission proportionately flow to academic insiders. This, rather than disposi-
than even those scientists engaged in applied research (i.e. the group tions, may explain patterns of activity. For instance, there is long-
typically seen as central to accomplishing the third mission). The im- standing evidence that male, tenured and research grant active
plications of this are likely to be threefold. academics are significantly more likely to engage in both formal and
First, it suggests underutilised capacity with the potential to make informal technology transfer (e.g. Link et al., 2007; Shane, 2004). Yet,
significant contributions to the third mission. This is also suggested by at least in the current sample, there is limited evidence of a particular
our findings on the positive disposition of female academics and those proclivity for entrepreneurship on their part. Rather, the most fertile
working at universities where teaching has a larger part to play in ca- ground may be found among the ‘outsiders’; those engaged primarily in
reer advancement. teaching, early career academics and female academics.
Second, and related to this, it implicates the broadening nature of For individual universities, our findings suggest the need to reflect
entrepreneurial activity on campuses (Siegel and Wright, 2015). As upon the strategies for resource allocation and entrepreneurial re-
most of us will recognise, a significant part of university en- sponsibility that underpin the pursuit of the third mission. Universities
trepreneurship is more closely linked to teaching than research. It is play “complicated and disparate roles” in their innovation systems that
bound up in new venture creation courses, business plan competitions, lead, in turn, to a wide variety of strategies for encouraging third
student societies, alumni relations and, increasingly, enthusiasm for mission activities (Grimaldi et al., 2011, p. 1047). This variety is un-
social entrepreneurship and social innovation. However, “the im- derpinned by a range of factors, including institutional and depart-
portance of student entrepreneurship has received far less attention mental culture, institutional quality and the quality of academic lea-
than it likely deserves” (Grimaldi et al., 2011, p. 1047).)It rarely tou- dership, and by the munificence and dynamism of the local economy.
ches upon technology transfer offices and it is poorly captured by In the face of this variety, it is tempting to elide guidance altogether.
standard metrics of academic entrepreneurship, such as spin-offs, pa- However, studies on the changing role of principal investigators (PI),
tents or license agreements. Fully articulating this broader perspective that recount analogous pressures on funding, sense of identity and
may further increase capacity. For instance, our finding that faculty ‘utility’, provide useful areas for managerial and policy attention. For
members who have had experience working for charities and non- instance, as Mangematin et al. (2014) observe, “the emergence of new
profits are significantly less likely to hold pro-mission attitudes raises roles comes hand and hand with tensions” (p. 4). Faculty members are
the question as to whether they would be more inclined to engage with trained for one set of activities – teaching and researching – but are
the third mission were greater emphasis placed upon social, rather than increasingly being asked to become active ‘brokers’ between science
economic development. Enlargement of the third mission beyond re- and society, and between science and industry. They are rarely pro-
gional and local economic development activities into social develop- vided with formal training to either act as brokers or to manage the
ment activities may induce greater engagement among this group of organisational politics that often accompany it. The PI literature points
academics. to the role of tailored incentives, of transparent resource allocation, of
Finally, the heterogeneity of attitudes across scientists is unlikely to informal and formal career-management support, and of capability
be evenly distributed across institutions. That is, some universities will building (Cunningham et al., 2016).
be better suited to some third mission activities and some will be better In many ways, we believe that academic entrepreneurship is ana-
suited to others (and some may be unsuited to any, given current logous to corporate entrepreneurship. To this end, Wolcott and Lippitz
governance and rewards systems). In short, one size is unlikely to fit all (2007) usefully elaborate two dimensions that distinguish varieties of
(Perkmann et al., 2013; Philpott et al., 2011). Yet, “despite their het- approaches to corporate entrepreneurship: resource ownership and
erogeneous backgrounds and institutional differences, universities seem entrepreneurial responsibility. Resources may be dedicated or ad hoc
to be under a financial policy pressure to adopt similar practices” and responsibility may be focused or diffused (Fig. 3). Here, there are
(Kitagawa et al., 2016, p.736). In many jurisdictions, universities are parallels to Degroof and Roberts (2004) observations on academic
subject to “isomorphic forces”, resulting from centralised research spinoff environments; noting that in developed entrepreneurial en-
evaluation and resource allocation processes. This is certainly true in vironments universities may adopt a passive strategy, confident that the
the UK, where the Research Excellence Framework (REF) looms large. community will select the best projects and allocate sufficient re-
Indeed, evidence suggests that, despite the availability of an extensive sources. However, in weaker entrepreneurial contexts, universities may
set of metrics on knowledge exchange activity, centralised funding have to more actively develop procedures and structures to evaluate
continues to privilege a much narrower range, and commercialisation and select projects and to set aside specific resources. Rather like
in particular (Rossi and Rosli, 2015). This is remarkable. Empirical Wolcott and Lippitz (2007), the issues are concerned with where en-
studies are consistent in painting a picture of a highly diverse higher trepreneurial responsibility resides and whether resources must be
education sector (see, for example Hewitt-Dundas, 2012; Huggins and dedicated or ad hoc. Beyond this, the central issue is that the variety of
Kitagawa, 2012 in the UK), with little sense of convergence. With re- third mission activities observed in related studies (Abreu and
spect to the third mission, universities appear to vary in at least three Grinevich, 2012) and the current evidence of potential underexploited
ways: the blend of activities that they undertakes; the types of partners capacity call for a more considered approach to third mission strategy
engaged; and, the geographic scope of the activities (Kitagawa et al., setting. We believe that the framework developed by Wolcott and
2016). Lippitz (2007) may be useful starting point.
This persistent heterogeneity ought, in turn, to convince stake- In brief, while two or more approaches often co-exist within a single
holders that conversations that conflate science commercialization with organisation, the broad implication is that, as organisations look to

18
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

be concerned with human capital development and to partner locally.

There is little doubt that, despite isomorphic policy pressures (Kitagawa
et al., 2016), universities continue to exhibit strong heterogeneity in
their approach to a third mission. University systems are historically
contingent and individual universities have evolved with different or-
ganisational legacies that bear on institutional cultures and priorities
and that will be manifest in governance structures, incentive systems
and balance of academic disciplines. A small amount of this will be
captured by the perspectives of individuals on their institution's in-
centive system. However, individual dispositions are likely to be shaped
by other institutional factors.
Unfortunately, this data was not available in the current analysis.
Analysis that embeds the individual within the institution is an im-
portant next step. In particular, we are enthusiastic about the possibi-
lities of further exploring the link between individual and institutional
dispositions. For instance, do particular types of individuals gravitate
Fig. 3. Four modes of corporate entrepreneurship (Wolcott and Lippitz, 2007). towards particular types of institutions, reinforcing patterns of resource
allocation and knowledge exchange? Does this, in turn, lead to rigidities
in implementation of third mission strategies? Parts of the literature has
build sustained and sustainable corporate entrepreneurship, responsi-
lamented the emergence of compliance and acquiescence, and the loss
bility is likely to become more focused and dedicated pots of resources
of creativity among academics in the face of third mission pressures
will be set aside (Wolcott and Lippitz, 2007). However, out intuition is
(e.g. Oleksiyenko, 2018). Other have raised concerns that insufficient
that universities will benefit most from a diffused responsibility for
resources for exploratory research will result in reactive strategies for
entrepreneurship. Our findings suggest that third mission capacities
research and engagement (O'kane et al., 2015). Understanding how the
may be found in previously neglected places. The opportunist and en-
interplay between individual and institutional aspirations influence this
abler models seem to be a natural starting point for engaging the groups
outcome is likely to be key to explicating the difference between uni-
of academics who are pro-mission but lack necessary resources and
versities that engage in entrepreneurial activities and truly en-
opportunities. To be effective, these approaches require a high trust
trepreneurial universities (Sam and Van Der Sijde, 2014).
environment. Moreover, the enabler model requires that university
Other areas of future research may revolve around the increasing
administrators provide dedicated resources with transparent processes
incidence of social entrepreneurial activities on campus or the role of
for resource access, active senior management support, and incentives
students as a dynamic flow of entrepreneurial capital. In the former
and rewards that recognise the breadth of the third mission.
case, we observe particular antipathy for the third mission among those
In summary, third mission activities are much broader than tradi-
with experience working in charities and not-for-profits. It seems likely
tional science-based activities; they involve many more people, roles
that an explicit articulation of the role of universities' third missions in
and activities. Many of which are informal, occasional or ad hoc and,
contributing to the development of social capital, as well as financial
thus, more difficult to measure (Secundo et al., 2017). As a result, many
capital, would help engage more academics; especially outside of the
of these activities are poorly resourced and ineffectively used in as-
disciplines traditionally considered to be the source of academic en-
sessing academic performance (Kapetaniou and Lee, 2017; Secundo
trepreneurship. In the latter case, student entrepreneurship, there exists
et al., 2017). Manifesting third mission breadth in resource allocation
an abundance of work exploring entrepreneurial education, but it has
decisions, incentives and rewards scheme is likely to be critical to en-
largely been concerned with the relationship between education and
gaging a larger cross-section of faculty members. We interpret our
intentions (see, for example, the reviews by Pittaway and Cope, 2007;
analyses to suggest that universities need to reflect upon the range of
Bae et al., 2014). Of more interest, here, might be the recursive re-
activities they want to promote and support under the third mission.
lationship between successful student entrepreneuring and academic
Moreover, they need to do this in light of their unique resource en-
and institutional dispositions. In a version of Merton's (1968) “Matthew
dowments, science bases (Mustar et al., 2006) and local development
effect”, might we find that success breeds success, such that individual's
contexts (Kapetaniou and Lee, 2017; Meissner and Shmatko, 2017;
and institution's dispositions towards student-centred third mission
Perkmann et al., 2013). As de la Torre, et al. (2018, p. 14) insist, “since
strategies is founded on recognition of successful student (or alumni)
HEIs are so different, they cannot be expected to respond in the same
entrepreneurs? Of course, there are likely to be a great many more
way to [centralised] incentives”.
fruitful research questions that rest on recognition of the contingency of
Of course, this institutional variety underscores a weakness in the
successful third mission strategies and that explore the various bases of
study. In the early parts of the paper, we stressed the strength of our
that contingency. We hope to contribute to some of these and to be
micro-level data. It is individual scientists that undertake third mission
enlightened by the work of others.
activities and studies of their attitudes are remarkably rare. However,
engagement – in type, in extent and with whom – appears to vary
somewhat systematically across institutions. Hewitt-Dundas (2012), for
Acknowledgements
instance, notes differences between high and low research intensity UK
institutions; with the former more likely to develop and exploit in-
The project received no funding. However, we would like to ac-
tellectual property and to partner with stakeholders outside their home
knowledge the UK Data Service for access to the survey data.
region. In contrast, low research intensity institutions are more likely to

19
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Appendix A 1

Correlation matrix of third mission items (Spearman's Rho).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Basic 1.000
2. Academic Freedom 0.168 1.000
3. Competitiveness −0.160 0.133 1.000
4. Labour markets −0.164 −0.193 0.233 1.000
5. Capacity 0.063 0.070 0.048 0.038 1.000
6. Too much 0.365 0.234 −0.203 −0.271 0.141 1.000
7. Too Little −0.167 −0.123 0.052 0.178 0.112 −0.116 1.000

Factor loadings

Variable Loading

1. Basic 0.501
2. Academic Freedom 0.311
3. Competitiveness −0.317
4. Labour markets −0.451
5. Capacity 0.086
6. Too much 0.585
7. Too Little −0.285

Factor analysis returned a single factor with an eigenvalue

exceeding 1.

References performance: a renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical

school research. J. Technol. Transf. 37 (4), 478–489.
Cunningham, J.A., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C., O’Reilly, P., 2016. At the Frontiers of
Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., 2012. The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to
widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. In: Research Policy, . http://www. become publicly funded principal investigators. J. Technol. Transf. 41 (4), 778–797.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733312002326. David, P.A., 2002. The political economy of public science: A contribution to the reg-
Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., 2014. Academic entrepreneurship in the creative arts. Eviron. ulation of science and technology. In: The Regulation of Science and Technology.
Plann. C. Gov. Policy 32 (3), 451–470. Springer, pp. 33–57.
Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., 2017. Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship. J. Degroof, J.-J., Roberts, E.B., 2004. Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for
Technol. Transf. 42 (4), 763–794. academic spin-off ventures. J. Technol. Transf. 29 (3–4), 327–352.
Abreu, M., Demirel, P., Grinevich, V., Karataş-Özkan, M., 2016. Entrepreneurial practices D’Este, P., Patel, P., 2007. University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors
in research-intensive and teaching-led universities. Small Bus. Econ. 47 (3), 695–717. underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res. Policy 36 (9), 1295–1313.
Ambos, T.C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., d’Este, P., 2008. When does University research D’este, P., Perkmann, M., 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The
get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. J. Manag. Stud. Entrepreneurial University and individual motivations. J. Technol. Transf. 36 (3),
45 (8), 1424–1447. 316–339.
Audia, P.G., Goncalo, J.A., 2007. Past success and creativity over time: a study of in- Dietz, J.S., Bozeman, B., 2005. Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry
ventors in the hard disk drive industry. Manag. Sci. 53 (1), 1–15. experience as scientific and technical human capital. Res. Policy 34 (3), 349–367.
Audretsch, D.B., 2014. From the Entrepreneurial University to the University for the Etzkowitz, Henry, 2002. MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science.
Entrepreneurial Society. J. Technol. Transf. 39 (3), 313–321. Fritsch, M., Krabel, S., 2012. Ready to leave the ivory tower?: academic scientists’ appeal
Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C., Fiet, J.O., 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship to work in the private sector. J. Technol. Transf. 37 (3), 271–296.
education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta–analytic review. Enterp. Theory Goethner, M., Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R.K., Cantner, U., 2012. Scientists’ transition to
Pract. 38 (2), 217–254. academic entrepreneurship: economic and psychological determinants. J. Econ.
Bekkers, R., Bodas Freitas, I.M., 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between Psychol. 33 (3), 628–641.
universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Res. Policy 37 (10), Goldstein, H.A., 2010. The ‘entrepreneurial turn’ and regional economic development
1837–1853. mission of universities. Ann. Reg. Sci. 44 (1), 83.
Benneworth, P., de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., 2015. Between good intentions and urgent Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., 2011. 30 years after Bayh–dole: re-
stakeholder pressures: institutionalizing the universities’ third mission in the Swedish assessing academic entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 40 (8), 1045–1057.
context. Eur. J. High. Educ. 5 (3), 280–296. Grimpe, C., Fier, H., 2010. Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the the United States and Germany. J. Technol. Transf. 35 (6), 637–650.
individual level. Organ. Sci. 19 (1), 69–89. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A., Urbano, D., 2015. Economic impact of entrepreneurial
Braunerhjelm, P., 2008. Specialization of regions and universities: the new versus the old. Universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Res. Policy 44
Ind. Innov. 15 (3), 253–275. (3), 748–764.
Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., Salter, A., 2010. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers Haeussler, C., Colyvas, J.A., 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: academic entrepreneurship
to university–industry collaboration. Res. Policy 39 (7), 858–868. in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Res. Policy 40 (1), 41–54.
Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., Vezzulli, A., 2007. If star scientists do not patent: the effect of Hessels, J., Van Gelderen, M., Thurik, R., 2008. Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations,
productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. and their drivers. Small Bus. Econ. 31 (3), 323–339.
Res. Policy 36 (3), 303–319. Hewitt-Dundas, N., 2012. Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK uni-
Carayol, N., 2007. Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large versities. Res. Policy 41 (2), 262–275.
French University. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 16 (2), 119–138. Hmieleski, K.M., Powell, E.E., 2018. The psychological foundations of university science
Casati, A., Genet, C., 2014. Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. J. Technol. commercialization: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Acad.
Transf. 39 (1), 11–32. Manag. Perspect. 32 (1), 43–77.
Cesaroni, F., Piccaluga, A., 2016. The Activities of University Knowledge Transfer Offices: Horta, H., Santos, J.M., 2016. An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda
Towards the Third Mission in Italy. The Journal of TechnologyTransfer 41 (4), setting: the multi-dimensional research agendas inventory. Scientometrics 108 (3),
753–777. 1243–1265.
Chantler, A., 2016. The ivory tower revisited. In: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Hoye, K., Pries, F., 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers,’the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of uni-
Politics of Education. 37 (2). pp. 215–229. versity–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29 (10), 682–689.
Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., Salter, A., 2011. The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, ex- Huggins, R., Kitagawa, F., 2012. Regional policy and university knowledge transfer:
perience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 40 perspectives from devolved regions in the UK. Reg. Stud. 46 (6), 817–832.
(8), 1084–1093. Hughes, A., Lawson, C., Salter, A., Kitson, M., Bullock, A., Hughes, R., 2016. The
Colyvas, J.A., Snellman, K., Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., 2012. Disentangling effort and Changing State of Knowledge Exchange: UK Academic Interactions with External

20
M. Freel, et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 147 (2019) 10–21

Organizations 2005–2015. Rossi, F., Rosli, A., 2015. Indicators of university–industry knowledge transfer perfor-
Iorio, R., Labory, S., Rentocchini, F., 2017. The importance of pro-social behaviour for the mance and their implications for universities: evidence from the United Kingdom.
breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: an analysis of Italian academic Stud. High. Educ. 40 (10), 1970–1991.
scientists. Res. Policy 46 (2), 497–509. Sam, C., Van Der Sijde, P., 2014. Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial uni-
Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M., 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role versity from the perspective of higher education models. High. Educ. 68 (6),
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. 891–908.
Res. Policy 38 (6), 922–935. Sauermann, H., Cohen, W., Stephan, P., 2010. Doing well or doing good? The motives,
Kapetaniou, C., Lee, S.H., 2017. A Framework for Assessing the Performance of incentives and commercial activities of academic scientists and engineers. In: DRUID
Universities: The Case of Cyprus. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 123, Summer Conference. 200. pp. 16–18.
169–180. Secundo, G., Perez, S.E., Martinaitis, Ž., Leitner, K.H., 2017. An Intellectual Capital
Kitagawa, F., Sánchez Barrioluengo, M., Uyarra, E., 2016. Third mission as institutional Framework to Measure Universities’ Third Mission Activities. Technological
strategies: between isomorphic forces and heterogeneous pathways. Sci. Public Policy Forecasting and Social Change 123, 229–239.
43 (6), 736–750. Shane, Scott Andrew, 2004. Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth
Koryakina, T., Sarrico, C.S., Teixeira, P.N., 2015. Third Mission activities: university Creation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
managers’ perceptions on existing barriers. Eur. J. High. Educ. 5 (3), 316–330. Shane, S., Dolmans, S.A.M., Jankowski, J., Reymen, I.M.M.J., Romme, A.G.L., 2015.
Krabel, S., Mueller, P., 2009. What drives scientists to start their own company?: an Academic entrepreneurship: which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer
empirical investigation of max Planck society scientists. Res. Policy 38 (6), 947–956. for spinoffs? J. Technol. Transf. 40 (2), 273–292.
Labory, S., Iorio, R., Rentocchini, F., 2015. Distinguishing between breadth and depth of Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., 2015. Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? Br. J.
knowledge transfer activities: The predominance of third Mission motives for Italian Manag. 26 (4), 582–595.
scientists. In: DRUID15 Conference on the Relevance of Innovation, Rome, Italy. Stephan, P.E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A.J., Black, G., 2007. Who’s patenting in the university?
Lam, A., 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commerciali- Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 16 (2),
zation: ‘gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Res. Policy 40 (10), 1354–1368. 71–99.
Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S., Bozeman, B., 2007. An empirical analysis of the propensity of Stokes, D.E., 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation 1997.
academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind. Corp. Chang. 16 The Brookings Institution.
(4), 641–655. Tartari, V., Salter, A., D’Este, P., 2012. Crossing the Rubicon: exploring the factors that
Lockett, N., Kerr, R., Robinson, S., 2008. Multiple perspectives on the challenges for shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Camb. J. Econ.
knowledge transfer between higher education institutions and industry. Int. Small 36 (3), 655–677.
Bus. J. 26 (6), 661–681. Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., Salter, A., 2014. In good company: the influence of peers on
Loi, M., Di Guardo, M.C., 2015. The third mission of universities: an investigation of the industry engagement by academic scientists. Res. Policy 43 (7), 1189–1203.
espoused values. Sci. Public Policy 42 (6), 855–870. de la Torre, E.M., Rossi, F., Sagarra, M., 2018. Who benefits from HEIs engagement? An
Mangematin, V., O’Reilly, P., Cunningham, J., 2014. PIs as boundary spanners, science analysis of priority stakeholders and activity profiles of HEIs in the United Kingdom.
and market shapers. J. Technol. Transf. 39 (1), 1–10. Stud. High. Educ. 1–20.
Meissner, D., Shmatko, N., 2017. Keep Open’: The Potential of Gatekeepers for the Watermeyer, R., 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher
Aligning Universities to the New Knowledge Triangle. Technological Forecasting and education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. Eur. J.
Social Change 123, 191–198. High. Educ. 5 (3), 331–347.
Merton, R.K., 1942. A note on science and democracy. J. Legal Pol. Soc. 1, 115. Wolcott, R.C., Lippitz, M.J., 2007. The four models of corporate entrepreneurship. MIT
Merton, R.K., 1968. The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication sys- Sloan Manag. Rev. 49 (1), 75.
tems of science are considered. Science 159 (3810), 56–63. Wright, M., 2014. Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where
Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M.G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., Wright, M., next? J. Technol. Transf. 39 (3), 322–334.
Clarysse, B., Moray, N., 2006. Conceptualising theHeterogeneity of Research-Based
Spin-Offs: A Multi-Dimensional Taxonomy. Research Policy 35 (2), 289–308. Mark Freel is the Royal Bank of Canada Professor for the Commericalisation of
Nelson, R.R., 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-dole rise of patenting at American Innovations at the Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa. He also holds an
universities. J. Technol. Transf. 26 (1–2), 13–19. appointment as a professor in innovation and entrepreneurship at Lancaster University
O’kane, C., Cunningham, J., Mangematin, V., O’Reilly, P., 2015. Underpinning strategic Management School, UK. Mark's interests are in the role of entrepreneurship and in-
behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environ- novation in business and economic development.
ments. Long Range Plan. 48 (3), 200–214.
Oleksiyenko, A., 2018. Zones of alienation in global higher education: corporate abuse
and leadership failures. Tert. Educ. Manag. 24 (3), 193–205. Ajax Persaud is a professor of marketing at the Telfer School of Management, University
of Ottawa. Dr. Persaud's research focuses on innovation, entrepreneurship, and mar-
Owen-Smith, J., Powell, W.W., 2001. Careers and contradictions: faculty responses to the
transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. In: The Transformation keting. Dr. Persaud received several nominations and awards for teaching and research
of Work. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 109–140. excellence. His research has been published in leading refereed journals and peer-re-
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., viewed conference proceedings including IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., 2013. Academic engagement and commercia- Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Technology Transfer, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, Engineering Management Journal, and Technovation. He
lisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res. Policy 42 (2),
423–442. has authored/co-authored five books including Marketing, 1st & 2nd Canadian Ed.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., Lupton, G., 2011. The entrepreneurial university:
examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31 (4), 161–170. Tyler Chamberlin is an associate professor of international business at the Telfer School
Pinheiro, R., Langa, P.V., Pausits, A., 2015. The institutionalization of universities’ third of Management. He holds a Ph.D. from the Centre for Research on Innovation and
mission: introduction to the special issue. Eur. J. High. Educ. 5 (3), 227–232. Competition (CRIC) at the University of Manchester. Dr. Chamberlin was a member of the
Pittaway, L., Cope, J., 2007. Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the Innovation Systems Research Network (ISRN) in Canada, which investigated the “Social
evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 25 (5), 479–510. Dynamics of Economic Performance: Innovation and Creativity in City-Regions”. He has
Rolfo, S., Finardi, U., 2014. University third mission in Italy: organization, faculty attitude published a number of studies concerned with sectoral and spatial patterns of innovation.
and academic specialization. J. Technol. Transf. 39 (3), 472–486.

21