Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Addressing academic researcher priorities through science and technology entrepreneurship education

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

Abstract

A key feature of the movement to create more entrepreneurial universities is incentivizing researchers to move discoveries beyond the laboratory and into society. This places additional expectations on Ph.D. students and faculty in science and engineering disciplines, who are encouraged to explore the commercialization of their research to promote the role of universities in innovation and job creation. A major barrier to this movement is that traditional Ph.D. training does not prepare researchers to participate in entrepreneurial activity, and as such its relevance to scientific work may not be evident. In this paper, we propose a course model for science and technology entrepreneurship education that has been designed to enable academic researchers to play a more active and informed role in the commercialization of their discovery. Its curricular foundation is a set of 14 factors that address the following four priorities: (1) technology readiness and timing, (2) intellectual property pathway decisions, (3) engagement with the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and (4) personal career choices. We describe the rationale for the course, its content and outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alper, J. (2016). A vision for the future of center-based multidisciplinary engineering research: Proceedings of a symposium.

  • Amsen, E. (2011). Leaving the lab: Career development for developmental biologists. Development, 138(19), 4107–4109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balven, R., Fenters, V., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. (2018). Academic entrepreneurship: The roles of identity, motivation, championing, education, work-life balance, and organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barile, S., Saviano, M., & Simone, C. (2015). Service economy, knowledge, and the need for T-shaped innovators. World Wide Web, 18(4), 1177–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, S. H., Baker, T. E. D., Markham, S. K., & Kingon, A. I. (2009). Bridging the valley of death: Lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 370–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biancamano, J. (2001). Dealing with faculty owned start-up companies: A policy development checklist. Paper presented at the National Association of College and University Attorneys annual conference. www.nacua.org.

  • Biancamano, J. (2002). Six tips for managing entrepreneurial faculty. Paper presented at the National Association of College and University Attorneys national conference. www.nacua.org.

  • Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual. K&S; Ranch.

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2, 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T., & Ogbogu, U. (2015). The commercialization of university-based research: Balancing risks and benefits. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, L., & Kenny, B. (2015). Research collaboration and commercialization: The PhD candidate perspective. Industry and Higher Education, 29(2), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J., Wulf, W. A., & Zemsky, R. (2005). Information technology and the research university-envisioning a transformed university-change is coming, and the biggest mistake could be underestimating how extensive it will be. Issues in Science and Technology, 22(1), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duening, T. N., Hisrich, R. A., & Lechter, M. A. (2014). Technology entrepreneurship: Taking innovation to the marketplace. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval-Couetil, N. (2013). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programs: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Small Business Management, 51, 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval-Couetil, N., & Wheadon, M. (2014). Enhancing the employability of doctoral students through entrepreneurship education. Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2014, 256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkäng, J., & Alberti, F. (2000). The assessment of entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher Education, 14, 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Martinez, J. (2014). The third way: Becoming an academic entrepreneur. Retrieved April 2, 2020 from Science|AAAS http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2014/03/third-way-becoming-academic-entrepreneur.

  • Gould, J. (2015). How to build a better PhD. Nature, 528(7580), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, E., Mole, B., Morello, L., Tollefson, J., Wadman, M., & Witze, A. (2013a). A back seat for basic science. Nature News, 496(7445), 277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, E., Mole, B., Morello, L., Tollefson, J., Wadman, M., & Witze, A. (2013b). A back seat for basic science. Nature, 496(7445), 277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmieleski, K. M., & Powell, E. E. (2018). The psychological foundations of university science commercialization: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 43–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36(5), 768–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang-Saad, A., Duval-Couetil, N., & Park, J. (2018). Technology and talent: capturing the role of universities in regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2), 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang-Saad, A., Fay, J., & Sheridan, L. (2017). Closing the divide: Accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1466–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulsey, L., Rosenberg, L., & Kim, B. (2006). Seeding entrepreneurship across campus: Early implementation experiences of the Kauffman campuses initiative. Retrieved April 2, 2020 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=981057 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.981057.

  • Kolvereid, L. (1996). Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 145–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krumboltz, J. D., Mitchell, A. M., & Jones, G. B. (1976). A social learning theory of career selection. The Counseling Psychologist, 6(1), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/089856200283072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libecap, G. D., & Thursby, M. (2008). Technological innovation: Generating economic results (Vol. 18). London: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, R. R., & Schöne, K. E. (2004). The entrepreneurial shift: Americanization in European high-technology management education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Love, B. J. (2013). Do university patents pay off-evidence from a survey of university inventors in computer science and electrical engineering. Yale JL & Tech, 16, 285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, W., Cooper, S., Ward, T., & Cave, F. (2009). Industry placement, authentic experience and the development of venturing and technology self-efficacy. Technovation, 29(11), 738–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathison, S. (2008). What is the difference between evaluation and research—and why do we care? In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K., Alexander, A., Cunningham, J. A., & Albats, E. (2018). Entrepreneurial academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Management, 77(1–3), 9–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morello, L. (2013). More cuts loom for US science. Nature, 501(7466), 147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrissey, S. (2012). What researcher who want to be entrepreneurs need to know. Chemical & Engineering News, 90(34), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. J., & Monsen, E. (2014). Teaching technology commercialization: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, O., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changer, and challengers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2009). New developments in technology management education: Background issues, program initiatives, and a research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 324–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. (2008). Science entrepreneurs need better business skills. London: New Scientist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, J., & Sprenger, J. (2014). Scientific objectivity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanberg, P. R., Gharib, M., Harker, P. T., Kaler, E. W., Marchase, R. B., Sands, T. D., et al. (2014). Changing the academic culture: Valuing patents and commercialization toward tenure and career advancement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(18), 6542–6547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2012). Science PhD career preferences: Levels, changes, and advisor encouragement. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2012). Stop pushing universities to license more inventions. Business Week, 2(1), 160–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Holleman, M., & Morgan, E. (2002). The “traffic” in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(2), 282–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 669–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thon, J. (2014). No jobs in academe? Consider becoming a scientist-entrepreneur. University Affairs/Affaires Universitaires. Retrieved April 2, 2020 from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/the-black-hole/career-trajectories-entrepreneurship/.

  • Thursby, M., Fuller, A., & Thursby, J. (2009). An integrated approach to educating professionals for careers in innovation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(9), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk-Bicakci, L., Berger, A., & Haxton, C. (2014). The nonacademic careers of STEM PhD holders. Broadening Participation in STEM Graduate Education, American Institute for Research. http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/STEM%20nonacademic%20careers%20April14.pdf. (2014年10月20日閲覧).

  • Valdivia, W. D. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Washington, DC: Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valliere, D. (2015). An effectuation measure of entrepreneurial intent. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 90–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, C., Bridgeman, B., Cline, F., Millett, C., Rock, J., Bell, N., et al. (2010). The path forward: The future of graduate education in the United States. Educational Testing Service.

  • Wheadon, M., & Duval-Couetil, N. (2014). Student perspectives on developing more relevant Ph.D. programs in STEM disciplines through professional skills training. Paper presented at the ASEE annual conference, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Williams, D., Smith, K., Yasin, N., & Pitchford, I. (2013). Evaluating the state of enterprise training for postgraduate researchers in the UK. Education + Training, 55(8/9), 849–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B. W., Pistoia, A., Ullrich, S., & Göttel, V. (2016). Business models: Origin, development and future research perspectives. Long Range Planning, 49(1), 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., & Phan, P. (2018). The commercialization of science: From determinants to impact. In Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY.

  • Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Academic entrepreneurship and business schools. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 560–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    Nathalie Duval-Couetil & Michael Ladisch

  2. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

    Soohyun Yi

Authors
  1. Nathalie Duval-Couetil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Ladisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soohyun Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Duval-Couetil.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample syllabus

ABE/TLI 62600: Life of a Faculty Entrepreneur: Discovery, Development and Translation

Thursdays, 5:30–8:20 pm—3 credits

Instructors

 

Michael Ladisch

Nathalie Duval-Couetil

Distinguished Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering & Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering

Professor, Technology Leadership and Innovation

Director, Laboratory of Renewable Resources Engineering

Associate Director, Burton Morgan Center

 

Director, Certificate in Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Course description

The course introduces graduate students and faculty to the intellectual, leadership, financial, and management processes for translating research into tangible products. The focus is on university initiated, early-stage commercialization activities. Lectures and reading materials address concepts and resources related to market research, financial analysis, intellectual property policy, commercialization pathways, and entrepreneurship, all of which are pertinent whether graduates choose careers in industry or academia. The course emphasizes:

  • Processes through which research is translated from laboratory to product

  • Frameworks for analyzing when technologies should be launched and how different pathways may lead to success

  • Case studies that illustrate business principles, commercialization strategies, and resources that assist in these efforts

Purpose and objectives

The intent of the course is to complement graduate student research activities and not detract from them in terms of content and time. Students are challenged to think systematically and analytically about processes that move research beyond publications, papers, and patents in order to initiate commercialization. We do not expect that all participants will have a technology that is ready for commercialization, which is often the case in other programs. Rather, our goal is to provide frameworks that will help university entrepreneurs define possible entry points to the commercialization process, and determine their best options prior to getting started. The course objectives are as follows:

  1. 1.

    Expose students to the process of research translation and commercialization

  2. 2.

    Prepare them to think critically about whether they want to participate, how best to participate, what to expect as outcomes, and how to position their research to keep options open

  3. 3.

    Provide a new lens through which they can evaluate their research and frame future proposals

  4. 4.

    Contribute to participants’ professional development by providing an understanding of the business context for their research

Course topics

Readings will be assigned by the instructors and will draw from a variety of academic, technical and business journals. Weekly lectures will address a set of 14 factors pertinent to science and technology-based entrepreneurship education. These focus heavily on the development of technology, while also integrating critical thinking related to the business, legal, career, and personal decisions necessary during each stage of commercialization. These factors include:

  1. 1.

    Proof of concept vs. actual prototypes

  2. 2.

    Timing: technology readiness, market readiness, and career readiness

  3. 3.

    Need for research discipline to achieve reproducibility of results and product robustness

  4. 4.

    Disclosures, provisional patents, patents, publications (the need for speed)

  5. 5.

    Freedom to operate analysis

  6. 6.

    Defining pathways: licensing vs. startup

  7. 7.

    Role of networking and entrepreneurial ecosystem

  8. 8.

    Building a business team to move from prototype to product

  9. 9.

    Sources of corporate and project capital vs organic growth

  10. 10.

    Understanding investors

  11. 11.

    Effective communication

  12. 12.

    Managing conflicts of interest

  13. 13.

    Financial and personal costs (and benefits) to founders of new ventures

  14. 14.

    Leadership

Assignments and grading

Assignments guide students, both individually and in teams, in developing a plan for commercialization in an area of technology relevant to their research or interests. Past commercialization projects have been in areas such as instrumentation, molecules, organisms (microorganisms, plants, or animals), catalysts (chemical or biochemical), biomedical devices, mechanical devices, agricultural technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, laboratory instruments, software, big data, and cybersecurity. If a student does not have a topic of their own, they will be assigned to a team.

Grades will be based on reading assignments, participation, two reflection papers, and a project/plan for translating technology from the laboratory to a commercial setting. The final written project and oral presentation will be graded in two parts (each worth 200 points). Projects will be developed in teams of three and in consultation with the instructors. Final oral presentations will be to a panel of experienced experts and entrepreneurs, who will evaluate the project and provide feedback.

Assignments and Grading

Points

Classroom, attendance, participation, and reading assignments

250

2 Reflection Papers—require students to apply the 14 factors and what they have learned through lectures and readings. They should be approximately1200 words excluding citations, tables, and figures

 

 Reflection 1: Apply what you know of the 14 factors to date to your own research

150

 Reflection 2: Apply the 14 factors to an emerging technology to be announced by the instructors

150

Preliminary oral presentation of project idea

50

Special Topic Project

 

 Oral presentation

200

 Written Report—due during finals week

200

Total possible points

1000

Examples of required and supplemental readings/resources

Academic Entrepreneurship

Gould, J. (2015). How to build a better PhD. Nature News, 528(7580), 22.

Loise, V., & Stevens, A. (2010). The Bayh-Dole Act turns 30. Science Translational Medicine, 2(52).

Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 145–170.

Kuzubek, J. (2016, October). If billionaires fund your research, don’t take public money, WIRED.

Lowe, R., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173–194.

Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., & Phan, P. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.

Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2002). Standing on shifting terrain: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Science & Technology Studies.

Renault, C. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.

Tabuchi, H. (2014, October). Venture capitalists return to backing science start-ups. New York Times.

Valdivia, W. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Wood, M. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54(2), 153–161.

Science, Technology & Innovation

Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2009). The innovator’s DNA. Harvard Business Review.

Hunter-Tilney, L. (2010, September). The music industry’s new business model. Financial Times Magazine.

Ladisch, M., Ximenes, E., Engelberth, A., & Mosier, N. (2014). Biological engineering and the emerging cellulose ethanol industry. Chemical Engineering Progress, 110(11), 59–62.

Mims, C. (2017, November). Laws of innovation everyone should heed. Wall Street Journal.

Naik, G. (2013, January). Storing digital data in DNA. Wall Street Journal.

Rangan, V. (1994). New product commercialization: Common mistakes. Harvard Business School Case #594127.

Schechner, S., MacMillan, D. & Lin, L. (2018, January). U.S. and Chinese companies race to dominate AI. Wall Street Journal.

Stuart, T., & Anderson, C. (2015). 3D Robotics: Disrupting the drone market. California Management Review, 57(2), 91–112.

Thomke, S., & Nimgade, A. (1998). Innovation at 3 m corporation (a). Harvard Business School Case #699012

Thomke, S., and B. Feinberg. (2012). Design thinking and innovation at Apple (1997–2002), Harvard Business School Case #609066.

Wang, S. (2013, January). The quest to create a bionic eye gets clearer. Wall Street Journal.

Winkler, R. (2013, January). Apple draws the short quarter. Wall Street Journal.

Zwilling, M. (2012, May). 6 reasons why working prototypes attract investors. Fortune.

Leadership Q & A, Leading a Business from Startup to Scale-up (Genomatica), CEP Magazine, 112(11), 24–25 (2016).

Business Startup Fundamentals

Blair, E., & Marcum, T. (2015). Heed our advice: Exploring how professionals guide small business owners in start-up entity choice. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 249–265.

Bruns, W. (2004, September). Introduction to Financial Ratios and Financial Statement Analysis, Harvard Business School Case #193029.

Carryer, B. (2017). Startup Briefs: The Ultimate No-Holds-Barred Guide to Start a Startup. Self Published.

Chamberlin, J. (2017, December). The 3-min pitch. American Psychological Association, Monitor on Psychology, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/12/three-minute-pitch.

Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.

Elsbach, K. (2003, September). How to pitch a brilliant idea, Kimberly Elsbach. Harvard Business Review.

Gilbert, C., & Eyring, M. (2010). Beating the odds when you launch a new venture. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 92–98.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 4–17.

Hamermesh, R., Marshall, P., & Pirmohamed, T. (2002). Note on business model analysis for the entrepreneur. Harvard Business School Case #802048.

Kerr, W. and Nanda, R. (2011, March). Financing New Ventures. Harvard Business School, Case #811093.

Marcum, T. & Blair, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial decisions and legal issues in early venture stages: Advice that shouldn’t be ignored. Business Horizons, 54(2), 143–152.

Zider, B. (1998). How venture capital works. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 131–139.

Roberts, M. & Stevenson, H., (2005). Deal structure and deal terms, Harvard Business School Case #806085.

Rosenberg, T. (2009). A note on valuation for venture capital. Richard Ivey School of Business Case.

Sahlman, W. (1997). How to write a great business plan. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 98–108.

Sahlman, W, & Willis, R. (2003, revised 2009). The Basic Venture Capital Formula. Harvard Business School Case #804042.

Spradlin, D. (2012, September). Are you solving the right problem? Harvard Business Review.

Stancill, J. (1986, May). How much money does your new venture need? Harvard Business School Case #86314.

Thomke, S., & Feinberg, B. (2009). Design thinking and innovation at Apple. Harvard Business School Case #609066.

Videos

Steve Jobs interviewed just before returning to Apple (1996). It’s not about the software—but innovation and business model. Sept 18, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaJp66ArJVI

Kawaski, G., The top 10 mistakes of entrepreneurs, (2013). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHjgK6p4nrw

Rose, D. Ted Talk: How to pitch to a VC. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_s_rose_on_pitching_to_vcs

Appendix 2

See Table 7.

Table 7 Pre- and post-program comparisons for venturing and technology self-efficacy scales
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duval-Couetil, N., Ladisch, M. & Yi, S. Addressing academic researcher priorities through science and technology entrepreneurship education. J Technol Transf 46, 288–318 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09787-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09787-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation