Search results

Knowledge sharing in research communities has been considered indispensable to progress in science. The aim of this paper is to analyze the mechanisms restricting knowledge sharing in science. It considers three categories of academia–industry knowledge transfer and a range of individual and contextual variables as possible predictors of knowledge-sharing restrictions.

A unique empirical data sample was collected based on a survey among 212 life science researchers affiliated with universities and other non-profit research institutions. A rich descriptive analysis was followed by binominal regression analysis, including relevant checks for the robustness of the results.

Researchers in academia who actively collaborate with industry are more likely to omit relevant content from publications in co-authorship with other academic researchers; delay their co-authored publications, exclude relevant content during public presentations; and deny requests for access to their unpublished and published knowledge.

This study informs policymakers that different types of knowledge-sharing restrictions are predicted by different individual and contextual factors, which suggests that policies concerning academia–industry knowledge and technology transfer should be tailored to contextual specificities.

This study contributes new predictors of knowledge-sharing restrictions to the literature on academia–industry interactions, including outcome expectations, trust and sharing climate. This study augments the knowledge management literature by separately considering the roles of various academic knowledge-transfer activities in instigating different types of knowledge-sharing restrictions in scientific research.

Interest in the field of entrepreneurship has significantly increased among academics, practitioners and government officials in the past decade both in the USA and in Europe. The increased interest is reflected in the increased number of courses, majors and minors at colleges and universities throughout the world; the increased number of endowed chairs; the increased number of journals in the field; the increased coverage of the field by the media; and the increased interest in the provision of government support. In light of this significant increased interest, it is important to understand the state of research in the field in Europe in the last few years, the focus of this article.

The purpose of this study is to analyze entrepreneurs' coping strategies used to face stakeholders' expectations.

The paper draws from the general management, role theory, and entrepreneurship literature to develop hypotheses that are tested by using hierarchical regression techniques on a sample of 183 Slovenian entrepreneurs. The paper develops and tests four coping strategies (structural role redefinition, personal role redefinition, reactive role behavior, and passive role behavior) to assess influence on new venture performance. The analysis examines moderating effects of entrepreneurs' perceived role‐related stress.

Results reveal that coping strategies focused on reducing expectations and/or working harder to meet expectations positively affect new venture performance. However, entrepreneurs' focus on suppressing perceived expectations negatively influences new venture performance. Furthermore, entrepreneurs' role‐related stress moderates the relationship between reactive role behavior and new venture performance.

This study provides a better understanding of types of coping strategies available to entrepreneurs and practical consequences for new venture performance. It also explores why some entrepreneurs perform well and why some may quit early being an entrepreneur while others remain and prosper in their role. Possible study limitations are discussed due to sample characteristics and measurement.

The study results are relevant for practising and nascent entrepreneurs, support organizations, and policy makers since empirical evidence can be used in designing entrepreneurs' training and competency‐building programs.

This study is among the first to illustrate effects on early entrepreneurial performance of coping strategies to meet stakeholders' expectations and, indirectly, entrepreneurs' ability to endure establishing a new venture.

Global technological competition has made technology transfer from academia to firms an important public policy issue (Rahm, 1994). Academia and individual academic institutions are a primary source of new knowledge production and innovation (Brennan & McGowan, 2007). It is widely acknowledged that the commercialization of scientific and technological knowledge produced in public funded research institutions, including universities and research centres, into the marketplace have a fundamental role to play in wealth creation, supporting economic growth and technological innovation, and plays a significant role in new venture creation, growth of existing firms, and new job creation (Mansfield, 1991; Harmon et al., 1997; Ndonzuau, Pirnay, & Surlemont, 2002; Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2003b; Steffensen, Rogers, & Speakman, 1999; Walter, Auer, & Ritter, 2006; Perez & Sanchez, 2003). Research by Acs, Audretsch, and Feldman (1992), Jaffe (1989), Mansfield (1991, 1998), and others indicates that technological change in important segments of the economy has been significantly based on knowledge that spin-off from academic research.

The aims of this paper are to: critically review and identify gaps in current literature on entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, provide a definition of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy that addresses some of those gaps, and explore the role of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy during the phases of a business start‐up process. The research seeks to define entrepreneurial self‐efficacy using three sources of dimensionality. The first includes the particular aspect of entrepreneurship to which self‐efficacy is applied, whether to business start‐up or business growth activities. The second sources of dimensionality refers to the content of self‐efficacy beliefs (task or outcome goal beliefs), and the third source to the valence of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy beliefs (positive or negative control beliefs).

The authors build from the origins and mechanisms of the self‐efficacy construct in social cognitive theory and a synthesis of that work with prior use of self‐efficacy in entrepreneurship to propose a definition of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy that is context specific and empirically testable.

Entrepreneurial self‐efficacy is best seen as a multidimensional construct made up of goal and control beliefs, and propositions for how these two different dimensions will play a role during phases in the process of starting‐up a new business are developed.

A well‐defined entrepreneurial self‐efficacy construct has significant pedagogical payoffs given that entrepreneurship education should also focus on social‐cognitive, psycho‐cognitive and ethical perspectives of entrepreneurship.

The proposed multidimensional nature of self‐efficacy is original and unique in its contribution, and provides a conceptual foundation to understand how capabilities along different dimensions of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy are created and nurtured. This knowledge is useful for potential entrepreneurs as well as those who support them in the process.

We argue that claims of an entrepreneurial miracle as a description of private sector development in post-communist Europe conflates entrepreneurship with self-employment. The difference between the two hinges on the Weberian distinction between enterprise- and household-centered businesses. We then present two paradigms, the entrepreneurial that emphasizes the first and the post-Fordist that stresses the importance of the second business type, and provide data on businesses and individual motivation of business owners. We find more support for the post-Fordist approach. Then we show that business forms, primarily associated with self-employment have different recruitment patterns and rewards than other, more entrepreneurial forms. We end with a plea to disaggregate the various forms of independent, private sector activity in future research.