THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL (DRAFT)

UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS
THE DISSERTATION PROPOSAL
(DRAFT)
Ljubljana, September 2011
Student: Barbara Kalar
Supervisor: doc. dr. Igor Prodan

1 PROPOSED TITLE
English:
University-industry relationship: Academics’ personal characteristics
and their engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity
Slovenian:
Povezava univerza-gospodarstvo: Osebne lastnosti akademikov in
njihovo sodelovanje pri prenosu znanja in tehnologije
2 RESEARCH TOPIC AREA
The research topic of the doctoral dissertation is an academic technology and knowledge
transfer activity which is a part of entrepreneurship field from business science. Thus, the
final doctoral dissertation will present an independent and original contribution to the field of
technology and knowledge transfer activity. In what follows, I present the framework of
dissertation topic area, which will be upgraded in the following months.
2.1 Broad topic area
University-industry relations have developed over the past twenty years due to environmental
changes affecting actions by universities, firms, and the government (Santoro & Bierly, 2006,
p. 495). Reforms in national research systems aiming to increase the commercialization of
research and thus technology and knowledge transfer have become a global trend
(Rasmussen, 2008, p. 506). In particular, many European countries have recently
implemented reforms and policy initiatives to promote and improve university technology and
knowledge transfer activities (Caldera & Debande, 2010, p. 1160; Rasmussen, 2008, p. 507).
Thus, academic entrepreneurship has become a strategic issue: as a source of funding for
university research and (rightly or wrongly) as a policy tool for economic development
(Geuna & Muscio, 2009, p. 93). Furthermore, also new growth theory models emphasize the
role of knowledge and its contribution to increase both productivity output and efficiency
(Acs & Plummer, 2005, p. 439). Consequently, the mutual relation between universities and
business sector through the exchange of knowledge has become a central concern for applied
economics as well as economic policy in the last years (Arvanitis, Kubli, & Woerter, 2008, p.
1865). A key element of research and innovation policies in most developed countries in the
world has become evolving new alliances between universities and industry (Bjerregaard,
2010, p. 100; Etzkowitz, 1998). Thus, the extent and intensity of university-industry relation
is seemed to be a major factor contributing to high innovation performance of the whole
economy (Arvanitis et al., 2008, p. 1865).
Although all these incentives and environmental changes have increased the desire for more
technology and knowledge transfer between universities and industry, many attempts of this
1

dissemination are unsuccessful (Santoro & Bierly, 2006, p. 495). According to the European
Commission, firms in Europe especially fail to commercialize new knowledge generated in
universities and other public research institutions in comparison to their US counterparts
(European Commission, 2007; Mueller, 2006, p. 1502; Polt, Rammer, Gassler, Schibany, &
Schartinger, 2001, p. 251). As commercialization activities may affect both teaching and basic
research, which are the main tasks of universities, there still exists a fear among some
academics that commercial orientation may be a potential for conflict and may lead them to
neglect or distract from their main tasks (Arvanitis et al., 2008, p. 1865; Lee, 1996, p. 856;
Perkmann & Walsh, 2008, p. 1884; Rasmussen, Moen, & Gulbrandsen, 2006, p. 518). Based
on above discussion, the interaction between university and industry has to be improved and
as a consequence technology and knowledge transfer activities have to be intensified
(Arvanitis et al., 2008, p. 1866). The additional policies and measures need to be defined
which will act as an incentive mechanism to improve university-industry relations and to
facilitate technology and knowledge transfer.
2.2 Narrow topic area
Many research universities have transformed themselves from a traditional university
characterized as an ivory tower to a university with strong ties to industry and a university
that supports the entrepreneurial activities of its academics (Krabel & Mueller, 2009, p. 947).
Entrepreneurship seems in many cases to be a driving force in the process of commercializing
university knowledge (Rasmussen et al., 2006, p. 520). In particular, entrepreneurial
academics are seen to be desirous to bridge the worlds of science and technology (Clark,
1998; D'Este & Perkmann, 2010; Etzkowitz, 2003; Shane, 2004). Academics engage in a
wide variety of channels through which they transfer their new technology or knowledge
(Bekkers & Bodas Freitas, 2008, p. 1837; Lockett, Wright, & Franklin, 2003, p. 186). These
channels can be grouped into eight broad categories of technology and knowledge transfer
activities: teaching, training (postgraduate training in company and training company
employees), publications, informal interactions (meetings and conferences), collaboration
(consultancy, contract research and cooperative joint research), patents, licensing, and
creation of physical facilities (setting up spinoff companies and creation of physical facilities
with industry funding, including campus laboratories, incubators and cooperative research
centres) (D'Este & Patel, 2007; D'Este & Perkmann, 2010; Geuna & Muscio, 2009, p. 98;
Landry, Saïhi, Amara, & Ouimet, 2010).
Initial entrepreneurial activities of university were limited to patenting and licensing activities
(Todorovic & Suntornpithug, 2008, p. 389). Furthermore, some universities utilized their
traditional activity teaching and established close connections with the local business
community, mostly through business consulting (Stocker, 1996; Todorovic & Suntornpithug,
2008, p. 389). Another way in which technology or knowledge are more directly
commercialize is through creation of spinoff company (Lockett et al., 2003, p. 186).
Therefore, many earlier studies of technology and knowledge transfer have concentrated on
2

patenting, licensing and formation of spinoff companies as the main contributions of
universities (D'Este & Patel, 2007, p. 1296). However, several studies highlighted that
publications, conferences, informal interactions, and collaboration are at least as, or even
more, important as patents and license agreements to most industries and universities (Caldera
& Debande, 2010; Cohen, Nelson, & Walsh, 2002; D'Este & Patel, 2007; Schartinger,
Schibany, & Gassler, 2001). According to D'Este and Patel (2007, p. 1296), this is partly
because only a minority of university-industry interactions are motivated by the prospect of
directly realized commercial product. Moreover, collaboration is not only more frequently
used than patenting, licensing and spinoff creation but it also tends to be more highly valued
(D'Este & Perkmann, 2010).
Prior studies focused on technology transfer have examined university incentives that may
encourage start-up companies and the role of institutions, especially universities and
university transfer offices, in fostering knowledge transfer (Krabel & Mueller, 2009, p. 948;
Landry et al., 2010, p. 1388). Very little research has examined the factors that lead and give a
deeper understanding of an involvement of a key actor – academic (Jain, George, &
Maltarich, 2009; Krabel & Mueller, 2009; Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007; Shane, 2004).
Despite the growing interest among academics and policy makers, there are a number of gaps
in understanding of university-industry relations (D'Este & Patel, 2007, p. 1296). In order to
fill the gap, this dissertation will focus on investigating the factors determining the propensity
of academics to engage in academic transfer activities through which the technology and
knowledge are transferred to industry. Namely, academic transfer activity may take variety of
forms (Fini, Lacetera, & Shane, 2010; Todorovic, McNaughton, & Guild, 2011). The
technology and knowledge transfer activities that an academic may engage in can be
considered as “soft”, which are those that are closer to a traditional university, and “hard”,
which are closer to an entrepreneurial university (Philpott, Dooley, O'Reilly, & Lupton,
2011). However hard activities, such as spinoffs formation, patenting, licensing, and contract
research, may often be viewed as being more entrepreneurial in nature (Philpott et al., 2011),
soft activities, such as teaching, training, publishing, informal interactions, and consulting
may often lead to the commercialization of the ideas that later take the form of hard activities
(Landry et al., 2010, p. 1389; Wood, 2011, p. 159). Thus, an academic‟s engagement in
technology and knowledge transfer activity is considered as the participation of academics in
at least one of the following activity: spinoff creation (real involvement as well as intentions),
patenting and licensing, contract research, consulting, informal interactions (meetings and
conferences), publishing, training, and teaching. The basic spectrum of technology and
knowledge activity, which was, with some modifications, adapted from Philpott, Dooley,
O'Reilly, and Lupton (2011, p. 162), is presented at Figure 1.
3

Figure 1: Spectrum of an academic’s technology and knowledge transfer activity
Source: Adapted from Philpott, et al. (2011, p. 162)
In what follows, the more detailed presentation of the individual paper is written.
2.2.1 First research paper
The focus of the first research paper will be on how the personal academic‟s characteristics
influence his or her engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity.
Many universities have transformed themselves from a traditional university into
entrepreneurial university (Krabel & Mueller, 2009, p. 947) and entrepreneurship has become
in many cases the driving force in the process of commercializing academic knowledge
(Rasmussen et al., 2006, p. 520). An academic‟s entrepreneurial behavior has an important
role especially in transferring technology and knowledge through creation of spinoff
companies, patenting, and licensing (Philpott et al., 2011; Shane, 2004). Based on the
literature review, the characteristics such as, risk-taking, self-efficacy, creativity, and
proactiveness, have been identified and believed as ones of the key factors in motivating
entrepreneurial behavior (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Gartner, 1989; Glassman et al., 2003,
p. 355; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Hence, the goal of this paper will be to examine how
personal academic‟s characteristics, including also above cited characteristics that have been
found as important for entrepreneurship, differently influence academics‟ engagement in
different technology and knowledge transfer activities. In the following paragraph, it is
shortly described how risk-taking, self-efficacy, creativity, and proactiveness are linked to
(academic) entrepreneurial behavior.
4

Propensity to risk-taking is frequently cited characteristic associated with entrepreneurial
behaviour. It is obviously that people differ in the way they resolve work-related or personal
decisions that involve risk and uncertainty (Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002, p. 263). A number of
studies have confirmed that the uncertainty is a part of an academic entrepreneurship (Shane,
2004, p. 32). Moreover, Todorovic, McNaughton, and Guild (2005) in their study identified
that risk taking is the most important dimension in developing an entrepreneurial university,
and may be a prerequisite for commercialization. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is defined as
an individual‟s confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform entrepreneurial roles
and tasks (Chen et al., 1998; Hao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). Prior studies analyzing selfefficacy
found that it is related to many workplace issues, such as adaptability to advanced
technology, academic research productivity, idea generation and creativity (Gundlach,
Martinko, & Douglas, 2003, p. 231). Creativity is seen as important personal characteristic of
entrepreneurial behavior because it is linked with identification of opportunities (Ko & Butler,
2007, p. 365). Namely, opportunity recognition is often cited as the key element to
entrepreneurship (Kirzner, 1997; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Moreover, research
identified a positive relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention, which has
been proven as the best predictor of planed behavior (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2006, p. 416).
On a more general level, a number of research has found that creative people are more selfconfident,
resourceful, curious, have a wide interests and thus they are more open to
experience and have a higher tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty as well as the courage to
think independently and an ability to recognize and sizes opportunities (Gough, 1979;
Hemlin, Allwood, & Martin, 2004, p. 209; Pawlak, 2000; Stoycheva & Lubart, 2001, p. 28).
Proactiveness may be crucial to an entrepreneurial behavior, since it suggests a forwardlooking
perspective and it takes initiatives to pursue and participate in new opportunities on
innovative way (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996, p. 146). Thus, individuals with proactive personality
constantly lookout for new ways, identify opportunities, believe in their ideas and tend to turn
their work and ideas into reality (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001).
Based on the written above, it has been found that personal entrepreneurial characteristics,
such as risk-taking, self-efficacy, creativity and proactiveness, could have an important role in
highlighting why academics engage in different technology and knowledge transfer activities.
Namely, academics that behave more entrepreneurial than others are more likely to engage in
any of academic transfer activities that are closer to entrepreneurial activity than traditional
activity of academics.
2.2.2 Second research paper
The focus of the second research paper will be on how the relationship between academic‟s
creative behaviour and his or her engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity is
moderated by university environment.
5

Creativity is an essential aspect of entrepreneurship (Ward, 2004, p. 173; Zampetakis &
Moustakis, 2006, p. 415). It is underlying element of entrepreneurial behavior since it is
linked with opportunity identification (Ko & Butler, 2007, p. 365). Therefore, creativity, as a
production of novel, useful ideas or problem solutions (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw,
2005, p. 369), is an engine that drives entrepreneurial discovery (Phan, Zhou, & Abrahamson,
2010, p. 181). Namely, the hart of an entrepreneurship are novel and useful ideas (Ward,
2004, p. 174). According to Matthews (2008, p. 1), creativity is performed through
entrepreneurial processes.
Scientific creativity has been studied from an individual perspective, focusing on individual
characteristics of scientists, by many studies (Hemlin, 2009). However, another important
approach to investigate scientific creativity is from an environmental perspective and thus
how individuals perceive the environment for creativity (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &
Herron, 1996; Hemlin, 2009).
University culture, routines and policies create an environment that has an important
influence on academics‟ behavior (D'Este & Patel, 2007, p. 1298). Recently, many
universities are encouraged to increase their commercialization of research to contribute to the
economic growth and thus, they are becoming the universities that support the entrepreneurial
activities of their academics (Krabel & Mueller, 2009; Todorovic et al., 2005). The extent of
individual‟s entrepreneurial activity responds to the business and entrepreneurial environment
as well as differences in individual characteristics (Hsu, Roberts, & Eesley, 2007, p. 785).
Therefore, the university environment plays a significant role in the entrepreneurial behavior
of academics (O'Shea, Allen, Chevalier, & Roche, 2005, p. 1006).
The work environment perceived by individuals can stimulate or inhibit both the level and the
frequency of their creative behavior and therefore, it has important influence in determining
ultimate creativity of those individuals (Amabile et al., 1996). Therefore, when individual
perceives a work environment that supports creativity he or she is likely to be more creative
(Amabile et al., 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Individuals in the organization
are influenced not only by their direct environment, but also by the culture and goals of the
whole organization and by the country in which it operates (Hemlin et al., 2004, p. 2).
Namely, organizational climate determines the degree to which creativity and innovation are
supported in the organization and thus, it helps to set the tone of the organization and leads to
greater or lower creativity (Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009, p. 192). Therefore, enhancement of
the levels of organizational creativity does not only lead to creative and innovative changes,
but also leads to changes in individuals and their behavior (Amabile et al., 1996; Martins &
Terblanche, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Rasulzada & Dackert, 2009).
Although creativity has been widely studied, there has been little attention on different aspect
of creativity, such as creative potential and practised creativity (DiLiello & Houghton, 2008).
The difference between individuals is in how they manage their creativity, since they cannot
6

utilize their all creative potential if the individuals‟ creative output is inhibited by the
environment (Hinton, 1968 in DiLiello & Houghton, 2008). Thus, the extent to which the
creative potential is expressed in practice depends to a great extent on the environment in
which the individual works (Hemlin et al., 2004, p. 1). Therefore, it is important to note that
at the individual level there are two distinct aspects of creativity, a creative potential and an
ability to utilize these skills and abilities as measured by creative performance or creative
behavior (Amabile et al., 2005; Amabile et al., 1996; Hinton, 1968, 1970 in DiLiello &
Houghton, 2006). Moreover, individuals with strong creative potential are more likely to
actually practised creativity when they perceive strong support from the organization
(DiLiello & Houghton, 2006).
The investigation of how the relationship between academic‟s creative behavior and his or her
engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity is moderated by university
environment will be analyzed for each of the eight academic transfer activities (spinoff
creation, patenting and licensing, contract research, consulting, informal interactions
(meetings and conferences), publishing, training, and teaching).
3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AIMS, GOALS, AND CONTRIBUTION
Despite the extensive literature on technology and knowledge transfer, there are still number
of gaps in the complete understanding of university-industry relationship (D'Este & Patel,
2007, p. 1296; Geuna & Muscio, 2009, p. 95). In order to fill few gaps in the literature, the
dissertation will focus on examining determinants that influence on engagement in academic
technology and knowledge transfer activity from the individual point of view. The main
reason for focusing on academics and the factors influencing their interactions with industry
is that we need to improve our understanding about who in academia interact with industry,
why and how (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2003; D'Este & Patel, 2007, p. 1298).
The doctoral dissertation will be composed in the form of three publishable papers linked to
technology and knowledge transfer as a leading topic. Therefore, the main research questions
of this doctoral dissertation will lead the main purpose of each of the three scientific papers.
The main research questions are:
1. How do academic’s personal characteristics influence his or her engagement in
technology and knowledge transfer activity?
2. How is the relationship between academic’s creative behaviour and his or her
engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity moderated by university
environment?
3. The third main research question will be determined through further work.
Thus, the first research aim is to find out and determine how academic‟s personal
characteristics influence his or her engagement in academic transfer activity. The second
research aim is to indentify how university environment influence the interaction between
7

academic‟s creative behavior and his or her engagement in technology and knowledge
transfer activity. The last research aim will be determined after.
The main research goal is to empirically investigate how may academics‟ personal
characteristics as well as environment in which they work influence their engagement in
technology and knowledge transfer activity. More specific research goals are:
detailed literature review on technology and knowledge transfer and factors
influencing academic‟s participation in technology and knowledge transfer activities
(reading scientific journals, such as The Academy of Management Journal, Creativity
and Innovation Management, Creativity Research Journal, Entrepreneurship: Theory
& Practice, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of Business
Venturing, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, The Journal of
Technology Transfer, R&D Management, Research Policy, Technovation, and others
from online research database, such as EBSCOhost, Proquest, Science Direct,
SpringerLink, Wiley Online Libary etc);
define academic engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity;
propose academic‟s personal characteristics that could have influence on his or her
engagement in technology and knowledge transfer activity;
propose research hypotheses and develop the conceptual models;
develop survey instrument;
conduct the research in Slovenia as well as in two foreign countries;
empirically analyze the results and present them;
and make the final conclusions.
The contribution of this doctoral dissertation will be by using the individual academic as a
unit of observation in order to clarify why there exist differences among academic‟s
engagement in different technology and knowledge transfer activity. In this way, the
dissertation will also consider both disclosed and undisclosed academic transfer activity
through eight different channels (spinoff creation, patenting and licensing, contract research,
consulting, informal interactions (meetings and conferences), publishing, training, and
teaching). Latter is important since, more and more studies claim that many academics do not
disclose a more or less significant part of their technology and knowledge transfer activities to
their university administrators (Agrawal, 2001, p. 300; Landry et al., 2010, p. 1399). And
most prior studies focused only on academic transfer activities that were disclosed to
university administrators (Landry et al., 2010, p. 1399). Moreover, this dissertation will be
one of the few studies that will compare different technology and knowledge transfer
activities with each other. The doctoral dissertation will also indicate how one personal
characteristic, creativity, which recently has been receiving more and more attention in
academic as well as business literature (Amabile et al., 2005; Heinze, Shapira, Rogers, &
Senker, 2009; Ko & Butler, 2007; Ward, 2004; Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2006), actually
influence academic‟s technology and knowledge transfer activity. Thus, the findings of this
study could provide a deeper understanding and better establishment of university-industry
8

elationship as well as more clearly description of both academics and entrepreneurial
university and thus how to enhance engagement in academic technology and knowledge
transfer activity.
4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Sample and data collection process
Based on the literature review, a survey instrument will be developed using Dillman‟s (2007)
tailored design method. The questionnaire will initially be in English which will be translated
into Slovenian language and then back translated into English. Following, the questionnaire
will be pre-tested on a sample of 15-20 academics of selected Slovenian faculties. The
feedback and comments of the pilot study will be considered and incorporated in designing
the final version of questionnaire.
The questionnaire will be mailed to the representative random sample of 2,000 academics in
Slovenia. Similar sample group as in Slovenia will be chosen in two foreign countries where
the research will be also conducted. A survey package will contain an eight-page
questionnaire, a personalized cover letter, and a stamped return envelope. Approximately one
week after the survey package, a personalized thank you e-mail will be sent to express
appreciation to the respondents who have returned the questionnaire, and to urge a response
from those who have not responded yet. If, after three weeks, the survey will not be returned a
personalized e-mail reminder will be sent.
4.2 Data analyses
Data will be analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, chi-square
statistics, t-test statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), reliability analysis, and exploratory
factor analysis. SPSS 16.0 for Windows will be used for exploratory factor analysis and
reliability analysis. Reliability will be assessed using Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient (Cronbach,
1951) for internal consistency. Structural equation modeling using EQS Multivariate Software
version 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 2006) will be utilized for confirmatory factor analysis and testing
of the proposed structural models. The z-value for both skewness and kurtosis will be
estimated to determine normal or non-normal distribution among the data. If it is found to
exist some small amount of non-normality in the data, Elliptical Reweighted Least Square
(ERLS) estimation method will be used (Sharma, Durvasula, & Dillon, 1989). As
recommended by several scholars the model fit will be assessed with multiple indices: NFI
(the normed-fit-index), NNFI (the non-normed-fit index), CFI (the comparative fit index),
GFI (the goodness-of-fit index), SRMR (the standardized root mean square residual), and
RMSEA (the root mean square error of approximation). All variables will be standardized.
The methodology presented in this chapter will be used in all three scientific papers.
9

5 PROPOSED STRUCTURE
Since this dissertation will be written in the form of publishable papers concerning academic
technology and knowledge transfer activity as a key topic, the proposed structure of the
doctoral dissertation will be:
INTRODUCTION
1 FIRST CHAPTER (title and abstract)
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Theory and hypotheses development
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Findings
1.5 Conclusion, limitations, implications and future research
1.6 References
2 SECOND CHAPTER (title and abstract)
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Theory and hypotheses development
2.3 Methodology
2.4 Findings
2.5 Conclusion, limitations, implications and future research
2.6 References
3 THIRD CHAPTER (title and abstract)
3.1. Introduction
3.2 Theory and hypotheses development
3.3 Methodology
3.4 Findings
3.5 Conclusion, implications, limitation and future research
3.6 References
CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
REFERENCE
APPENDICES
10

REFERENCE
Acs, Z. J., & Plummer, L. A. (2005). Penetrating the "knowledge filter" in regional
economies. The Annals of Regional Science, 39(3), 439-456.
Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and
unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at
Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and
technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation
with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865-1883.
Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between
universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy,
37(10), 1837-1853.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2006). EQS for Windows (Build 90). Multivariate Software,
Inc., 1992-2006.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2003, June 12-14). Technology transfer and the academic
department: Who participates and why? Paper presented at the DRUID Summer
Conference 2003, Copenhagen.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions
of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100-108.
Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology
transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39(9), 1160-1173.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Issues in higher education. New York: IAU Press.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of
public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334.
D'Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors
underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-
1313.
D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The
entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, In press.
DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for
the future: Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 319-337.
11

DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2008). Creative potential and practised creativity:
Identifying untapped creativity in organizations. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 17(1), 37-46.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new
university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial
university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109-121.
European Commission. (2007). Knowledge transfer between research institutions and
industry – Frequently asked questions. Brussels, 4 April 2007.
Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation
in academia. Research Policy, 39(8), 1060-1069.
Gartner, W. B. (1989). "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical
review of the literature. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 47(1),
93-114.
Glassman, A. M., Moore, R. W., Rossy, G. L., Neupert, K., Napier, N. K., Jones, D. E., et al.
(2003). Academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 353-374.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405.
Gundlach, J. M., Martinko, J. M., & Douglas, C. S. (2003). Emotional intelligence, causal
reasoning, and the self-efficacy development process. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 229-246.
Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1265-1272.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional
influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38(4), 610-623.
Hemlin, S. (2009). Creative knowledge environments: An interview study with group
members and group leaders of university and industry R&D groups in biotechnology*.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 278-285.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). Creative knowledge environments: The
influences on creativity in research and innovation. Massachusetts, USA: Edward
Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based
universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36(5), 768-788.
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity.
Research Policy, 38(6), 922-935.
12

Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An
Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60-85.
Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Business
Horizons, 50(5), 365-372.
Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An
empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947-
956.
Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage
their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387-1403.
Lee, Y. S. (1996). 'Technology transfer' and the research university: A search for the
boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843-863.
Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities' spin-out
strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185-200.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates
creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
Matthews, J. H. (2008). Developing creative capital: What can we learn from the workplace?
In: Creating Value: Between Commerce and Commons. Paper presented at the CCI
International Conference, 25-27 June 2008, Brisbane. Qld., from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15772/1/15772.pdf
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and universityindustry
relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499-1508.
O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation,
technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy,
34(7), 994-1009.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Pawlak, A. M. (2000). Fostering creativity in the new millennium. Research Technology
Management, 43(6), 32-35.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic
consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10),
1884-1891.
Phan, P., Zhou, J., & Abrahamson, E. (2010). Creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship in
China. Management and Organization Review, 6(2), 175-194.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university:
Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161-170.
Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., & Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarking
industry-science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and Public
Policy, 28(4), 247-258.
Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of
university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506-517.
13

Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ř., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote
commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518-533.
Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to
psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal,
21(2/3), 191-198.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A
taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
Santoro, M. D., & Bierly, P. E. (2006). Facilitators of knowledge transfer in universityindustry
collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 53(4), 495-507.
Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities
and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3),
255-268.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Psychology, 54(4), 845-874.
Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of enterpreneurship as a field of research.
The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Sharma, S., Durvasula, S., & Dillon, W. R. (1989). Some results on the behavior of alternate
covariance structure estimation procedures in the presence of non-normal data.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 214-221.
Stocker, S. (1996). Training future consultants. Consulting to Management, 9(1), 39-44.
Stoycheva, K. G., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). The nature of creative decision making, in Allwood,
C. M. & Selart, M. (eds), Decision making: Creative and social dimensions.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.15–33.
Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2005). Making university departments
more entrepreneurial: The perspective from within. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 6(2), 115-122.
Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial
orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2-3), 128-137.
Todorovic, Z. W., & Suntornpithug, N. (2008). The multi-dimensional nature of university
incubators: Capability/resource emphasis phases. Journal of Enterprising Culture,
16(4), 385-410.
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 19(2), 173-188.
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:
Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 15(4), 263-290.
Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons,
54(2), 153-161.
14

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Linking creativity with entrepreneurial
intentions: A structural approach. International Entrepreneurship & Management
Journal, 2(3), 413-428.
15

REFERENCE that will probably be used in the doctoral dissertation
Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University-industry
collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6-7), 498-507.
Acs, Z. J., & Plummer, L. A. (2005). Penetrating the "knowledge filter" in regional
economies. The Annals of Regional Science, 39(3), 439-456.
Acworth, E. B. (2008). University-industry engagement: The formation of the Knowledge
Integration Community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research
Policy, 37(8), 1241-1254.
Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and
unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285-302.
Albors-Garrigos, J., Zabaleta, N., & Ganzarain, J. (2010). New R&D management paradigms:
Rethinking research and technology organizations strategies in regions Jose Albors-
Garrigos, Noemi Zabaleta and Jaione Ganzarain Rethinking RTOs strategies in
regions. R&D Management, 40(5), 435-454.
Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Does policy influence the commercialization route?
Evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists. Research Policy, 39(5),
583-588.
Allen, K. R. (2003). Bringing new technology to market. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
Alshumaimri, A., Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). The university technology transfer
revolution in Saudi Arabia. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 585-596.
Amabile, T. M. (1994). The “atmosphere of pure work”: Creativity in research and
development’, in Shadish, W. R. and Fuller, S. (eds), The social psychology of science.
London: The Guilford Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and
loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at
Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Anderson, N. (2004). Work with passion: How to do what you love for a living. California:
New World Library.
Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university
technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306-318.
Andersson, H., & Berggren, C. (2007). Individual inventors in the R&D factory. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 16(4), 437-446.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and
technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation
with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865-1883.
16

Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm?
Some reasons for the delocalisation of university-industry interaction. Technovation,
27(11), 704-715.
Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2006).
Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of
R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy,
35(1), 37-55.
Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior:
Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
63(4), 599-623.
Baba, Y., Shichijo, N., & Sedita, S. R. (2009). How do collaborations with universities affect
firms' innovative performance? The role of "Pasteur scientists" in the advanced
materials field. Research Policy, 38(5), 756-764.
Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh-Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on
university patenting activity. Research Policy, 38(8), 1217-1224.
Baldini, N. (2010a). Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from
Italy. Technovation, 30(2), 109-116.
Baldini, N. (2010b). University spin-offs and their environment. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 22(8), 859-876.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Banerjee, P. M., & Cole, B. M. (2010). Breadth-of-impact frontier: How firm-level decisions
and selection environment dynamics generate boundary-spanning inventions.
Technovation, 30(7-8), 411-419.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of
team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2010). A knowledge-based typology of university
spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30(9-10),
519-532.
Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1997). The moderating effect of environmental variables on
the entrepreneurial and marketing orientation of entrepreneur-led firms.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 22(1), 47-58.
Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between
universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy,
37(10), 1837-1853.
Bendis, R. A., & Craciunoiu, S. T. (2002). Overcoming barriers to technology transfer and
business commercialisation, in Central and Eastern Europe: Solutions and
Opportunities. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2006). EQS for Windows (Build 90). Multivariate Software,
Inc., 1992-2006.
17

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2003, June 12-14). Technology transfer and the academic
department: Who participates and why? Paper presented at the DRUID Summer
Conference 2003, Copenhagen.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2004). Academic entrepreneurs: Social learning and
participation in university technology transfer. Work in progress.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A
conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175-188.
Bergman, E. M. (2010). Knowledge links between European universities and firms: A review.
Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 311-333.
Bernardos Barbolla, A. M., & Casar Corredera, J. R. (2009). Critical factors for success in
university-industry research projects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
21(5), 599-616.
Bessant, J., & Venables, T. (2008). Creating wealth from knowledge: Meeting the innovation
challenge. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Bidault, F., & Castello, A. (2009). Trust and creativity: Understanding the role of trust in
creativity-oriented joint developments. R&D Management, 39(3), 259-270.
Bird, B. J., & Allen, D. N. (1989). Faculty entrepreneurship in research university
environments. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(5), 583-596.
Bird, B. J., Hayward, D. J., & Allen, D. N. (1993). Conflicts in the commercialization of
knowledge: Perspectives from science and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 17(4), 57-77.
Bishop, K., D'Este, P., & Neely, A. (2010). Gaining from interactions with universities:
Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy, In Press,
Corrected Proof.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions
of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100-108.
Blau, J. (2009). Europe R&D initiatives struggle to lift off. Research Technology
Management, 52(6), 6-8.
Bloch, C. (2007). Assessing recent developments in innovation measurement: the third edition
of the Oslo Manual. Science and Public Policy, 34(1), 23-34.
Boardman, P. C. (2009). Government centrality to university-industry interactions: University
research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Research
Policy, 38(10), 1505-1516.
Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private
companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142-153.
Boehlke, S. (2008). The politics of creativity: Four domains for inquiry and action by
leaders in R&D. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 77-87.
Braunerhjelm, P. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship: Social norms, university culture and
policies. Science and Public Policy, 34(9), 619-631.
Brazeal, D. V. (1993). Organizing for internally developed corporate ventures. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8(1), 75-90.
18

Brennenraedts, R., Bekkers, R., & Verspagen, B. (2006). The different channels of universityindustry
knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering.
Unpublished Working Paper, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An
exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14-
26.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of
performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 863-873.
Brockhaus, R. H., & Horwitz, P. S. (2002). The psychology of the entrepreneur, in Krueger,
N. F., Entrepreneurship: critical perspectives on business and management. London:
Routledge.
Brockhaus, R. H., Sr. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. The Academy of
Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
Broström, A. (2010). Working with distant researchers - Distance and content in universityindustry
interaction. Research Policy, 39(10), 1311-1320.
Brundin, E., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Managers' emotional displays and
employees' willingness to act entrepreneurially. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(2),
221-243.
Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers
to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.
Byrne, C. L., Mumford, M. D., Barrett, J. D., & Vessey, W. B. (2009). Examining the leaders
of creative efforts: What do they do, and what do they think about? Creativity and
Innovation Management, 18(4), 256-268.
Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology
transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39(9), 1160-1173.
Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2009). The unequal benefits of academic
patenting for science and engineering research. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 56(1), 16-30.
Caligiuri, P. M., Jacobs, R. R., & Farr, J. L. (2000). The Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness
Scale: scale development and construct validation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 27-46.
Carayannis, E. G., Alexander, J., & Ioannidis, A. (2000). Leveraging knowledge, learning,
and innovation in forming strategic government-university-industry (GUI) R&D
partnerships in the US, Germany, and France. Technovation, 20(9), 477-488.
Cardon, M. S. (2008). Is passion contagious? The transference of entrepreneurial passion to
employees. Human Resource Management Review, 18(2), 77-86.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of
entrepreneurial passion. The Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511-532.
Cardon, M. S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B. P., & Davis, C. (2005). A tale of
passion: New insights into entrepreneurship from a parenthood metaphor. Journal of
Business Venturing, 20(1), 23-45.
19

Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1), 199-232.
Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M. C., & Valentini, G. (2010). Organizing links with science:
Cooperate or contract?: A project-level analysis. Research Policy, 39(7), 882-892.
Cetindamar, D., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2009). Understanding technology management as a
dynamic capability: A framework for technology management activities.
Technovation, 29(4), 237-246.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples* 1. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37(4), 319-338.
Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M.-H. (2009). The determinants of academic research
commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective.
Research Policy, 38(6), 936-946.
Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative
performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and nonparametric
evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
Chen, M.-H. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in
entrepreneurial teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), 239-249.
Chen, M.-H., & Kaufmann, G. (2008). Employee creativity and R&D: A critical review.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(1), 71-76.
Chong, E., & Ma, X. (2010). The influence of individual factors, supervision and work
environment on creative self-efficacy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(3),
233-247.
Chung-Jen, C., Hsi-An, S., & Su-Yueh, Y. (2009). The role of intellectual capital in
knowledge transfer. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(3), 402-411.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Issues in higher education. New York: IAU Press.
Cohen-Meitar, R., Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2009). Linking meaningfulness in the
workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification
and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 361-375.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of
public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002).
How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61-72.
Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2008). The CEMI survey of technology transfer offices.
Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology
licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123-
135.
Crespi, G., D'Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2010). The impact of academic patenting on
university research and its transfer. Research Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof.
20

Crespi, G., D'Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on
university research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40(1), 55-68.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.-S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors
affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 20(1-2), 39-68.
D'Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors
underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-
1313.
D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The
entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, In press.
Dalziel, M. (1994, 25-28 Sep 1994). Effective university-industry technology transfer. Paper
presented at the In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Dangelico, R. M., Garavelli, A. C., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2010). A system dynamics model to
analyze technology districts' evolution in a knowledge-based perspective.
Technovation, 30(2), 142-153.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(1), 23-36.
Dechenaux, E., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2011). Inventor moral hazard in university
licensing: The role of contracts. Research Policy, 40(1), 94-104.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer--
UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27(3), 145-155.
Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics
and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research
Policy, 38(2), 293-305.
Desrochers, P., & Leppälä, S. (2011). Creative cities and regions: The case for local economic
diversity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(1), 59-69.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than
others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227.
DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for
the future: Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 319-337.
DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2008). Creative potential and practised creativity:
Identifying untapped creativity in organizations. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 17(1), 37-46.
21

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Ding, W., & Choi, E. (2010). Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of
scientists' founding and advising activities. Research Policy, In Press, Corrected
Proof.
Doherty, R. W. (1997). The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual differences.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21(2), 131-154.
Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 269-285.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105 - 123.
Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at a
Swedish university. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 303 - 310.
Elfenbein, D. W. (2007). Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 688-715.
Ensign, P. C., & Hebert, L. (2004, 5-8 Jan. 2004). Knowledge sharing among R&D scientists.
Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on.
Eom, B.-Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact
on firm performanc: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization.
Research Policy, 39(5), 625-639.
Erikson, T. (2002). Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging venture's most important asset and
competitive advantage. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 275-290.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new
university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of universityindustry-government
networks. Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 115-128.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial
university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109-121.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the
university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial
paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
Eun, J.-H., Lee, K., & Wu, G. (2006). Explaining the "University-run enterprises" in China: A
theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and
its application to China. Research Policy, 35(9), 1329-1346.
European Commission. (2007). Knowledge transfer between research institutions and
industry – Frequently asked questions. Brussels, 4 April 2007.
Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation
in academia. Research Policy, 39(8), 1060-1069.
Fisher, S. G. (1997). Creativity, idea generation, and the functional morphology of streams.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16(2), 305-318.
22

Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university-industry R&D
projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy,
35(2), 309-323.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. The
Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.
Ford, C. M., Sharfman, M. P., & Dean, J. W. (2008). Factors associated with creative
strategic decisions. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 171-185.
Ford, S., Garnsey, E., & Probert, D. (2010). Evolving corporate entrepreneurship strategy:
Technology incubation at Philips. R&D Management, 40(1), 81-90.
Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Korunka, C. (2007). The significance of personality in business
start-up intentions, start-up realization and business success. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 19(3), 227-251.
Frank, S., Joel, K., Denise, M. R., & Richard, C. H. I. V. (2003). A cross-cultural exploratory
study of the linkage between emotional inetlligence and managerial effectiveness.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 171.
Franzoni, C., & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents, and spin-offs:
Critical issues and lessons for Europe.
Franzoni, C., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Academic entrepreneurs: Critical issues and lessons for
Europe, in Varga A., Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development:
Geography, entrepreneurship and policy. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA:
Edward Elgar.
Frenz, M., & Ietto-Gillies, G. (2009). The impact on innovation performance of different
sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey.
Research Policy, 38(7), 1125-1135.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives,
management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17-30.
Fukugawa, N. (2009). Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centers
in Japan. Technovation, 29(12), 885-892.
Gartner, W. B. (1989). "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive
factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of
Business Venturing, 10(5), 371-391.
Gaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US research universities: The
impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities.
Technovation, 30(3), 215-222.
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical
review of the literature. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 47(1),
93-114.
Gibson, C., & Klocker, N. (2004). Academic publishing as 'creative' industry, and recent
discourses of 'creative economies': Some critical reflections. Area, 36(4), 423-434.
23

Gignac, G. E., Stough, C., & Loukomitis, S. (2004). Openness, intelligence, and self-report
intelligence. Intelligence, 32(2), 133-143.
Gilsing, V. A., van Burg, E., & Romme, A. G. L. (2010). Policy principles for the creation
and success of corporate and academic spin-offs. Technovation, 30(1), 12-23.
Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of „valuable‟ university-industry
linkages?: Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy, 38(6), 906-921.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers
that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South
Africa and Italy. Research Policy, 39(6), 748-761.
Glassman, A. M., Moore, R. W., Rossy, G. L., Neupert, K., Napier, N. K., Jones, D. E., et al.
(2003). Academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(4), 353-374.
Gobble, M. M. (2010). Industry-defined fundamental research: Creating an agenda for basic
research. Research Technology Management, 53(5), 55-62.
Goethner, M., Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Cantner, U. (2011). Foundations of
academic entrepreneurship: A path model for the prediction of scientists' academic
entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the DIME Final Conference, Maastricht.
Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the
commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639-
658.
Golob, E. (2006). Capturing the regional economic benefits of university technology transfer:
A case study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(6), 685-695.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405.
Grimaldi, G. (2009). Ideas, errors and the commercialisation of valuable knowledge.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(6), 699-710.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2004). Accord or discord? Tensions and creativity in research, in Hemlin,
S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R., Creative knowledge environments: The influences
on creativity in research and innovation. Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar
Publishing, Inc.
Gulbrandsen, M., Mowery, D., & Feldman, M. (2011). Introduction to the special section:
Heterogeneity and university-industry relations. Research Policy, 40(1), 1-5.
Gurdon, M. A., & Samsom, K. J. (2010). A longitudinal study of success and failure among
scientist-started ventures. Technovation, 30(3), 207-214.
Gwynne, P. (2009). Moving ideas from academia to marketplace. Research Technology
Management, 52(6), 4-6.
Haeussler, C. (2010). Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study.
Research Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Haeussler, C. (2011). Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study.
Research Policy, 40(1), 105-122.
Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic
entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41-
54.
24

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
(7 th ed.): Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1265-1272.
Hao, Z., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to
entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Management, 36(2), 381-404.
Harrington, D. M. (1999). Conditions and settings/environment, in Encyclopedia of creativity
(Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Harris, J. D., Sapienza, H. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2009). Ethics and entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 24(5), 407-418.
Hasan, I., & Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation-economic growth nexus: Global evidence.
Research Policy, 39(10), 1264-1276.
Hatcher, C. (2003). Refashioning a passionate manager: Gender at work. Gender, Work &
Organization, 10(4), 391-412.
Häussler, C. (2010). The economics of knowledge regulation: An empirical analysis of
knowledge flows. R&D Management, 40(3), 300-309.
Havas, A. (2009). Universities and the emerging new players: Building futures for higher
education. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(3), 425-443.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional
influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38(4), 610-623.
Hemlin, S. (2009). Creative knowledge environments: An interview study with group
members and group leaders of university and industry R&D groups in biotechnology*.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 278-285.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). Creative knowledge environments: The
influences on creativity in research and innovation. Massachusetts, USA: Edward
Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Hemlin, S., & Olsson, L. (2011). Creativity-stimulating leadership: A critical incident study
of leaders' influence on creativity in research groups. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 20(1), 49-58.
Hinton, B. L. (1968). A model for the study of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative
Behaviour, 2, 133-142.
Hinton, B. L. (1970). Personality variables and creative potential. Journal of Creative
Behaviour, 4(3), 210-217.
Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the "open classroom". Review of Educational
Research, 49(1), 71-85.
Hospers, G.-J., & Pen, C.-J. (2008). A view on creative cities beyond the hype. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 17(4), 259-270.
Hoye, K., & Pries, F. (2009a). 'Repeat commercializers', the 'habitual entrepreneurs' of
university-industry technology transfer. Technovation, 29(10), 682-689.
25

Hoye, K., & Pries, F. (2009b). „Repeat commercializers,‟ the „habitual entrepreneurs‟ of
university-industry technology transfer. Technovation, 29(10), 682-689.
Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based
universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36(5), 768-788.
Hsu, M. L. A., & Hsueh-Liang, F. (2010). Organizational innovation climate and creative
outcomes: Exploring the moderating effect of time pressure. Creativity Research
Journal, 22(4), 378-386.
Huang, C.-C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An
empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786-797.
Hunt, R. M. (2002). An exploratory study of entrepreneurial arts and sciences faculty in the
context of their work environments. Unpublished Ph.D., The College of William and
Mary, United States -- Virginia.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90.
Igbaria, M., Kassicieh, S. K., & Silver, M. (1999). Career orientations and career success
among research, and development and engineering professionals. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 16(1), 29-54.
Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during
transition. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 975-995.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the
Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology.
Research Policy, 32(9), 1555-1568.
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity.
Research Policy, 38(6), 922-935.
JAPTI. (2011). Imam idejo. Retrieved 27 th July, 2011, from
http://www.imamidejo.si/Inovativnost/Prirocnik-za-izumitelje/Postopek-patentiranja
Jasinski, A. H. (2009). Barriers for technology transfer: The case of a country in transition.
Journal of Technology Management in China, 4(2), 119-131.
Jayasinghe, K., Thomas, D., & Wickramasinghe, D. (2008). Bounded emotionality in
entrepreneurship: An alternative framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 14(4), 242-258.
Jensen, R., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2008). In or out: Faculty research and consulting,
working paper.
Jensen, R., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. C. (2010). University-industry spillovers, government
funding, and industrial consulting. NBER Working Paper 15732, February 2010.
Jiatao, L. (2010). Global R&D alliances in China: Collaborations with universities and
research institutes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(1), 78-87.
Just, R. E., & Huffman, W. E. (2009). The economics of universities in a new age of funding
options. Research Policy, 38(7), 1102-1116.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-
18.
26

Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current
university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407-1422.
Kerle, R. (2010). Creativity in Organizations. The Creative Leadership Forum.
Kim, T.-Y., Hon, A. H. Y., & Deog-Ro, L. (2010). Proactive personality and employee
creativity: The effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 37-45.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An
Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60-85.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe –
The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-309.
Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Business
Horizons, 50(5), 365-372.
Kobe, C., & Goller, I. (2009). Assessment of product engineering creativity. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 18(2), 132-140.
Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating
university-industry linkages--An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy,
37(8), 1224-1240.
Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An
empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947-
956.
Kroll, H., & Liefner, I. (2008). Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology
commercialisation in a transforming economy - Evidence from three universities in
China. Technovation, 28(5), 298-313.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.
Krueger, N. F. J. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new
venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(1), 5-21.
Kuratko, D. F., Montagno, R. V., & Hornsby, J. S. (1990). Developing an intrapreneurial
assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment.
Strategic Management Journal, 11, 49-58.
Lai, J.-Y., Wang, C.-T., & Chou, C.-Y. (2009). How knowledge map fit and personalization
affect success of KMS in high-tech firms. Technovation, 29(4), 313-324.
Lam, A. (2010). From 'ivory tower traditionalists' to 'entrepreneurial scientists'?: Academic
scientists in fuzzy university -- industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40(2),
307-340.
Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage
their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387-1403.
Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes
of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10),
1586-1598.
Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An
overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40(1), 6-19.
27

Lee, H.-f., Miozzo, M., & Laredo, P. (2010). Career patterns and competences of PhDs in
science and engineering in the knowledge economy: The case of graduates from a UK
research-based university. Research Policy, 39(7), 869-881.
Lee, S. H., & Wong, P. K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A
career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 7-28.
Lee, S. S., & Osteryoung, J. S. (2004). A comparison of critical success factors for effective
operations of university business incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of
Small Business Management, 42(4), 418-426.
Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis
of new firm formation. Regional Studies, 38(8), 879 - 891.
Lee, Y. S. (1996). 'Technology transfer' and the research university: A search for the
boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843-863.
Lehrer, M., Nell, P., & Gärber, L. (2009). A national systems view of university
entrepreneurialism: Inferences from comparison of the German and US experience.
Research Policy, 38(2), 268-280.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., et al.
(2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk
Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 8(2), 75-84.
Leung, A. K., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience
enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63(3), 169-181.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2005). External commercialization of knowledge: Review and research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 231-255.
Liefner, I., & Schiller, D. (2008). Academic capabilities in developing countries--A
conceptual framework with empirical illustrations from Thailand. Research Policy,
37(2), 276-293.
Lin, B.-W., & Wu, C.-H. (2010). How does knowledge depth moderate the performance of
internal and external knowledge sourcing strategies? Technovation, 30(11-12), 582-
589.
Lin, J. L., Fang, S.-C., Fang, S.-R., & Tsai, F.-S. (2009). Network embeddedness and
technology transfer performance in R&D consortia in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11),
763-774.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its
effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial
Organization, 21(9), 1323-1356.
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.
Lissoni, F. (2010). Academic inventors as brokers. Research Policy, 39(7), 843-857.
Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities' spin-out
strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185-200.
28

Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Soto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe:
An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly,
34, 110-131.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation
to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
Luukkonen, T., & Nedeva, M. (2010). Towards understanding integration in research and
research policy. Research Policy, 39(5), 674-686.
Ma, H., & Tan, J. (2006). Key components and implications of entrepreneurship: A 4-P
framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 704-725.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like home? The
contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees' creative
performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757-767.
Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. (2009). Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical
spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management,
18(4), 315-325.
Mair, J. (2002). Entrepreneurial behaviour in a large traditional firm: Exploring key drivers.
Research Paper No 466. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, 1-15.
Malakate, A., Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2007). Assessing job candidates' creativity:
Propositions and future research directions. Creativity and Innovation Management,
16(3), 307-316.
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology
commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401-1423.
Martin, B. R., Allwood, C. M., & Hemlin, S. (2004). Conclusions: How to stimulate creative
knowledge environments, in Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R., Creative
knowledge environments: The influences on creativity in research and innovation.
Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial
university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in
a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
33(3), 259-283.
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates
creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals
among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393-407.
Matsumoto, M., Yokota, S., Naito, K., & Itoh, J. (2010). Development of a model to estimate
the economic impacts of R&D output of public research institutes. R&D Management,
40(1), 91-100.
Matthews, J. H. (2008). Developing creative capital: What can we learn from the workplace?
In: Creating Value: Between Commerce and Commons. Paper presented at the CCI
29

International Conference, 25-27 June 2008, Brisbane. Qld., from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15772/1/15772.pdf
McAdam, R., McAdam, M., & Brown, V. (2009). Proof of concept processes in UK
university technology transfer: An absorptive capacity perspective. R&D
Management, 39(2), 192-210.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(1), 81-90.
McInnis, C. (2001). Promoting academic expertise and authority in an entrepreneurial culture.
Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education, 13(2),
45-55.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry
interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835-851.
Mings, J. M. (1998). Technology transfer: A shortcut in danger of short circuit. The Journal
of Technology Transfer, 23(3), 3-6.
Moultrie, J., & Young, A. (2009). Exploratory study of organizational creativity in creative
organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(4), 299-314.
Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry
technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? In Essays in Honor of
Edwin Mansfield (pp. 233-245): Springer US.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of
patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-
Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119.
Mowery, D. C., & Shane, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on university
entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science, 48(1), v-ix.
Mudambi, R., & Swift, T. (2009). Professional guilds, tension and knowledge management.
Research Policy, 38(5), 736-745.
Müller, K. (2010). Academic spin-off's transfer speed--Analyzing the time from leaving
university to venture. Research Policy, 39(2), 189-199.
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and universityindustry
relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499-1508.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1),
51-75.
Naranjo-Gil, D. (2009). The influence of environmental and organizational factors on
innovation adoptions: Consequences for performance in public sector organizations.
Technovation, 29(12), 810-818.
Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off
creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281-289.
Niedergassel, B., & Leker, J. (2011). Different dimensions of knowledge in cooperative R&D
projects of university scientists. Technovation, 31(4), 142-150.
30

Nieminen, M. (2004). Changing academic research environments and innovative research, in
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R., Creative knowledge environments: The
influences on creativity in research and innovation. Massachusetts, USA: Edward
Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Nikulainen, T., & Palmberg, C. (2010). Transferring science-based technologies to industry -
Does nanotechnology make a difference? Technovation, 30(1), 3-11.
Noefer, K., Stegmaier, R., Molter, B., & Sonntag, K. (2009). A great many things to do and
not a minute to spare: Can feedback from supervisors moderate the relationship
between skill variety, time pressure, and employees' innovative behavior? Creativity
Research Journal, 21(4), 384-393.
Nosella, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2009). University-level mechanisms supporting the creation of
new companies: An analysis of Italian academic spin-offs. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 21(6), 679-698.
O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation,
technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy,
34(7), 994-1009.
O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O'Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the
anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1-16.
Ohta, T., Kyoung-Joo, L., & Kakehi, K. (2008, 27-31 July 2008). Role of formal boundary
spanning structure and changing pattern of university-industry collaborative research
in University of Tokyo. Paper presented at the Management of Engineering &
Technology, 2008. PICMET 2008. Portland International Conference on.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Paananen, M. (2009). Exploring the relationships between knowledge sources in the
innovation process: Evidence from Finnish innovators. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 21(6), 711-725.
Palich, L. E., & Ray Bagby, D. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risktaking:
Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(6), 425-
438.
Park, B. I. (2011). Knowledge transfer capacity of multinational enterprises and technology
acquisition in international joint ventures. International Business Review, 20(1), 75-
87.
Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of universityindustry-government
relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives.
Research Policy, 39(5), 640-649.
Park, J.-h., & Moultrie, J. (2010, June 16 - 18, 2010). Understanding university academics'
internal and external knowledge interactions in different disciplines: Evidence from
universities in South Korea. Paper presented at the Summer Conference 2010 on
"Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology", Imperial College
London Business School.
31

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences
on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.
Pawlak, A. M. (2000). Fostering creativity in the new millennium. Research Technology
Management, 43(6), 32-35.
Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality
on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic
consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10),
1884-1891.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of universityindustry
relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033-
1065.
Petocz, P., Reid, A., & Taylor, P. (2009). Thinking outside the square: Business students'
conceptions of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 409-416.
Petroni, A. (2000). Strategic career development for R&D staff: A field research. Team
Performance Management, 6(3/4), 52-62.
Petruzzelli, A. M. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical
distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation,
In Press, Corrected Proof.
Phan, P., Zhou, J., & Abrahamson, E. (2010). Creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship in
China. Management and Organization Review, 6(2), 175-194.
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. USA:
Now Publishers Inc.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university:
Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161-170.
Politis, D. J. The impact of self-management leadership on organisational creativity. 1-18.
Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., & Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarking
industry-science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and Public
Policy, 28(4), 247-258.
Ponomariov, B., & Craig Boardman, P. (2008). The effect of informal industry contacts on
the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 301-313.
Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists' collaboration and
productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and
scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613-624.
Popadiuk, S., & Choo, C. W. (2006). Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these
concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 26(4), 302-312.
Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology
licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291-311.
32

Pries, F., & Guild, P. (2010). Commercializing inventions resulting from university research:
Analyzing the impact of technology characteristics on subsequent business models.
Technovation, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Pries, F., & Guild, P. (2011). Commercializing inventions resulting from university research:
Analyzing the impact of technology characteristics on subsequent business models.
Technovation, 31(4), 151-160.
Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An
empirical test. Technovation, 30(5-6), 332-347.
Pullen, A., De Weerd-Nederhof, P., Groen, A., Song, M., & Fisscher, O. (2009). Successful
patterns of internal SME characteristics leading to high overall innovation
performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(3), 209-223.
Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of
university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506-517.
Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship:
A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy,
39(5), 602-612.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ř., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote
commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518-533.
Rasulzada, F., & Dackert, I. (2009). Organizational creativity and innovation in relation to
psychological well-being and organizational factors. Creativity Research Journal,
21(2/3), 191-198.
Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in
converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278-290.
Ray, P. K., & Ray, S. (2010). Resource-constrained innovation for emerging economies: The
case of the Indian telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 57(1), 144-156.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina e Cunha, M., Correia, A., & Saur-Amaral, I. (2007). Leader selfreported
emotional intelligence and perceived employee creativity: An exploratory
study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), 250-264.
Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer.
Technovation, 21(4), 253-261.
Rosell, C., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Have university knowledge flows narrowed?: Evidence
from patent data. Research Policy, 38(1), 1-13.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A
taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows:
Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305-
320.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential, in Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L.,
& Singer, J. L. (eds), Creativity: From potential to realization, (pp. 21-30).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
33

Santoro, M. D., & Bierly, P. E. (2006). Facilitators of knowledge transfer in universityindustry
collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 53(4), 495-507.
Santoro, M. D., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). The institutionalization of knowledge transfer
activities within industry-university collaborative ventures. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 17(3-4), 299-319.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions
between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants.
Research Policy, 31(3), 303-328.
Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities
and firms: Empirical evidence for Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3),
255-268.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the
21st century. The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 10(4), 80-88.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
580-607.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Psychology, 54(4), 845-874.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity
and productivity. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483-503.
Shane, S. (2002). Executive Forum: University technology transfer to entrepreneurial
companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 537-552.
Shane, S. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act
on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1),
127-151.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource
Management Review, 13(2), 257-279.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of enterpreneurship as a field of research.
The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Sharma, S., Durvasula, S., & Dillon, W. R. (1989). Some results on the behavior of alternate
covariance structure estimation procedures in the presence of non-normal data.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 214-221.
Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation.
Commun. ACM, 50(12), 20-32.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). An assessment of the
use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic
Management Journal, 25(4), 397-404.
34

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational
practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An
exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27-48.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge
transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry
collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-
133.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the
effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioner:
Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal
of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2), 115-142.
Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and risk on creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 400-408.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Siqueira, A. C. O., & Bruton, G. D. (2010). High-technology entrepreneurship in emerging
economies: Firm informality and contextualization of resource-based theory. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(1), 39-50.
Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2010). Specialized search and innovation performance - evidence
across Europe. R&D Management, 40(3), 310-323.
Spann, M. S., Adams, M., & Souder, W. E. (1995). Measures of technology transfer
effectiveness: key dimensions and differences in their use by sponsors, developers and
adopters. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(1), 19-29.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. The
Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.
Stock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (2002). Firm size and dynamic technological
innovation. Technovation, 22(9), 537-549.
Stock, G. N., & Tatikonda, M. V. (2000). A typology of project-level technology transfer
processes. Journal of Operations Management, 18(6), 719-737.
Stocker, S. (1996). Training future consultants. Consulting to Management, 9(1), 39-44.
Stoycheva, K. G., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). The nature of creative decision making, in Allwood,
C. M. & Selart, M. (eds), Decision making: Creative and social dimensions.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.15–33.
Styhre, A., & Gluch, P. (2009). Creativity and its discontents: Professional ideology and
creativity in architect work. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18(3), 224-233.
Sugandhavanija, P., Sukchai, S., Ketjoy, N., & Klongboonjit, S. (2011). Determination of
effective university-industry joint research for photovoltaic technology transfer
(UIJRPTT) in Thailand. Renewable Energy, 36(2), 600-607.
Suutari, V., & Taka, M. (2004). Career anchors of managers with global careers. Journal of
Management Development, 23(9), 833-847.
Tan, G. (1998). Managing creativity in organizations: A total system approach. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 7(1), 23-31.
35

Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the
university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14-25.
Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes
of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59-72.
Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university
intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109-124.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth
in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90-104.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university–
industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162-178.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for
research. Research Policy, 40(1), 20-29.
Thursby, M., Thursby, J., & Gupta-Mukherjee, S. (2007). Are there real effects of licensing
on academic research? A life cycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 63(4), 577-598.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity.
Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432.
Tijssen, R. J. W. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement
models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35(10), 1569-
1585.
Todorovic, Z. W. (2007). The framework of static and dynamic components: An examination
of entrepreneurial orientation and university ability to teach entrepreneurship, in
Fayolle, A., Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: A general
perspective (Vol. 1). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2005). Making university departments
more entrepreneurial: The perspective from within. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 6(2), 115-122.
Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial
orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2-3), 128-137.
Todorovic, Z. W., & Suntornpithug, N. (2008). The multi-dimensional nature of university
incubators: Capability/resource emphasis phases. Journal of Enterprising Culture,
16(4), 385-410.
Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on
specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, 29(1), 59-71.
Tolstoy, D., & Agndal, H. (2010). Network resource combinations in the international
venturing of small biotech firms. Technovation, 30(1), 24-36.
Tylecote, A. (2009). Creating Wealth from Knowledge: Meeting the Innovation Challenge.
Edited by John Bessant and Tim Venables. R&D Management, 39(3), 307-308.
Van Der Steen, M., & Enders, J. (2008). Universities in evolutionary systems of innovation.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(4), 281-292.
36

van Geenhuizen, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2009). Academic spin-offs at different ages: A case
study in search of key obstacles to growth. Technovation, 29(10), 671-681.
Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K.
(2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical
assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical
proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491-502, 530-
531.
Vega-González, L. R., Qureshi, N., Kolokoltsev, O. V., Ortega-Martínez, R., & Saniger
Blesa, J. M. (2010). Technology valuation of a scanning probe microscope developed
at a university in a developing country. Technovation, 30(9-10), 533-539.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct,
dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942-962.
Vincett, P. S. (2010). The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their
implications for public policy. Research Policy, 39(6), 736-747.
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and
entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 21(4), 541-567.
Wamae, W. (2009). Enhancing the role of knowledge and innovation for development.
International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 8(3),
199-220.
Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(4), 635-657.
Wang, K. Y., & Casimir, G. (2007). How attitudes of leaders may enhance organizational
creativity: Evidence from a Chinese study. Creativity and Innovation Management,
16(3), 229-238.
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 19(2), 173-188.
Ward, W. D., & Barcher, P. R. (1975). Reading achievement and creativity as related to open
classroom experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(5), 683-691.
Watkins, K. (2001). What can be patented? Tappi journal, 84(6), 35-35.
Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale:
Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 15(4), 263-290.
Wilkinson, J. M. (2006). Technology transfer: Seeking a more efficient way. Medical Device
Technology, 17(9), 36-39.
Winnen, C. J. (2005). To be or not to be: The role of passion and obsession in the
entrepreneurial process. Unpublished Ed.D., University of St. Thomas (Minnesota),
United States -- Minnesota.
Witt, L. A., & Beorkrem, M. N. (1989). Climate for creative productivity as a predictor of
research usefulness and organizational effectiveness in a r&d organization. Creativity
Research Journal, 2(1&2), 30-40.
37

Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story
writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15(4), 297-310.
Wood, M. S. (2009). Does one size fit all? The multiple organizational forms leading to
successful academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(4),
929-947.
Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons,
54(2), 153-161.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
Woolgar, L. (2007). New institutional policies for university-industry links in Japan.
Research Policy, 36(8), 1261-1274.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities'
linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research
Policy, 37(8), 1205-1223.
Yamada, J.-i., & Yamashita, M. (2006). Entrepreneurs' intentions and partnership towards
innovation: Evidence from the Japanese film industry. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 15(3), 258-267.
Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J.-R. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located
on science parks really more innovative?: Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy,
38(1), 77-85.
Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Selfefficacy,
enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431-449.
Young, B., Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2008). Intellectual Property management in
publicly funded R&D centres - A comparison of university-based and company-based
research centres. Technovation, 28(8), 473-484.
Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses.
Research Policy, 37(8), 1167-1174.
Zampetakis, L. A., Beldekos, P., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). Day to day entrepreneurship
within organizations: The role of trait emotional intelligence and perceived
organizational support. European Management Journal, 27, 165-175.
Zampetakis, L. A., Kafetsios, K., Bouranta, N., Dewett, T., & Moustakis, V. S. (2009). On the
relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial attitudes and
intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 15(6),
595-618.
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Linking creativity with entrepreneurial
intentions: A structural approach. International Entrepreneurship & Management
Journal, 2(3), 413-428.
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks
and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial
status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271.
38

Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2007). Star scientists, innovation and regional and national
immigration: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common bisocial
factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999-1029.
39