Search for: All records

PurposeUniversities and government agencies offer academic scientists entrepreneurship training and resources to catalyze their involvement in technology commercialization activity. This study investigates the impact of such training on the entrepreneurial intention and behaviors of graduate students and faculty researchers, focusing on factors that moderate these effects. Design/methodology/approachData were collected through pre-, post- and longitudinal quantitative surveys administered to 3,455 participants in the National Science Foundation I-Corps Teams program in the United States. The analysis involved repeated-measures ANOVA to assess changes in entrepreneurial intention and binary logistic regression to predict entrepreneurial behavior over time. FindingsThe first set of analyses revealed that the impact of entrepreneurial training on intention was moderated by three key factors: (1) professional role (Ph.D. student or faculty member), (2) prior entrepreneurial experience, and (3) the perceived potential of a specific technology commercialization project. Longitudinal analyses revealed that perceived project potential, followed by prior entrepreneurial experience, were the strongest moderators affecting the strength of the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and actual entrepreneurial behavior. Originality/valueAt a theoretical level, this study advances our understanding of the intention–behavior gap in academic entrepreneurship by identifying key moderating factors – professional role, prior entrepreneurial experience and project potential – that influence how intentions translate into actions. At an applied level, it explores how immersive programs such as I-Corps influence academic scientist engagement in startup activities at research universities. 

PurposeThis study examined differences related to gender and racial/ethnic identity among academic researchers participating in the National Science Foundation’s “Innovation-Corps” (NSF I-Corps) entrepreneurship training program. Drawing from prior research in the fields of technology entrepreneurship and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, this study addresses the goal of broadening participation in academic entrepreneurship. Design/methodology/approachUsing ANOVA and MANOVA analyses, we tested for differences by gender and minoritized racial/ethnic identity for four variables considered pertinent to successful program outcomes: (1) prior entrepreneurial experience, (2) perceptions of instructional climate, (3) quality of project team interactions and (4) future entrepreneurial intention. The sample includes faculty (n = 434) and graduate students (n = 406) who completed pre- and post-course surveys related to a seven-week nationwide training program. FindingsThe findings show that group differences based on minoritized racial/ethnic identity compared with majority group identity were largely not evident. Previous research findings were replicated for only one variable, indicating that women report lower amounts of total prior entrepreneurial experience than men, but no gender differences were found for other study variables. Originality/valueOur analyses respond to repeated calls for research in the fields of entrepreneurship and STEM education to simultaneously examine intersecting minoritized and/or under-represented social identities to inform recruitment and retention efforts. The unique and large I-Corps national dataset offered the statistical power to quantitatively test for differences between identity groups. We discuss the implications of the inconsistencies in our analyses with prior findings, such as the need to consider selection bias. 

Purpose Expanding access to entrepreneurship training programs can be a method to increase female involvement in technology commercialization only if these programs adequately address the specific challenges facing female faculty and graduate students. In the context of the US National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps (NSF I-Corps) program, this study examines gender differences in prior experience and attitudes towards the training in order to propose improvements to the program design. Design/methodology/approach This quantitative study uses Pearson's Chi-Square and ANOVA tests on survey data from the I-Corps national program ( n  = 2,195), which enrolls faculty members, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and industry experts. Findings In comparison to male participants, female I-Corps participants reported less entrepreneurial experience prior to the program, poorer team relationships during the program and lower entrepreneurial intention and technology commercialization readiness at both the beginning and the end of the program. However, no gender differences were found in positive or negative perceptions of the instructional climate or perceptions of program usefulness. Originality/value This study is unique as it is based on a large-scale dataset drawn from sites across the United States. The results support potential changes to I-Corps and similar programs, including providing more explicit instructions for tasks with which female participants have less prior experience than males (e.g. in applying for patents), offering guidance for team interactions, and providing mentorship to assess whether low self-efficacy is leading women to underestimate the potential success of their projects. 

Given that undergraduate engineering students are becoming more involved in research and entrepreneurial activities that can lead to the generation of intellectual property (IP), this study investigates faculty attitudes related to IP policies and practices associated with educating and guiding undergraduate students. We surveyed a sample of 143 faculty members from both engineering and entrepreneurship education to examine: (a) the extent and nature of faculty involvement in undergraduate IP; (b) issues confronting faculty as they relate to undergraduate IP; (c) ways to catalyze undergraduate involvement in the generation of IP; (d) indicators of success; (e) future changes; and (f) best practices. We found that the majority of faculty members who were involved in undergraduate IP perceived that unclear policies, a lack of information, and unclear ownership of inventions were the most significant obstacles when guiding and teaching students. Furthermore, unwritten policies, biased ownership of information toward universities, lack of legal assistance for undergraduate students placed undergraduate students in a gray area where legal policies were not sufficient. Faculty who had previously guided students through the patent process reported greater concerns about teaching students the values and the principles of protecting intellectual property than those who did not. In terms of the role universities should play in enhancing undergraduate IP generation, most participants agreed that universities should educate students about IP protection (87%) and entrepreneurship (71%). The three most highly rated success indicators in educating undergraduate IP development were the increasing number of students involved in real world innovation and invention and entrepreneurial activities and enhancing student involvement with industry. When asked how universities could mitigate issues related to student IP, six themes emerged from participants’ open-ended responses, including: university taking no claim on student IP; early education and training about intellectual property issues; consulting assistance from TTO; creation of entrepreneurial culture or ecosystem; and access to low cost legal advice. Faculty members surveyed had strong views about where potential problems occur, and fewer recommendations on what resources should be provided. From the data, it is clear that there is still much to be accomplished to clarify the extent to which universities should be involved in managing undergraduate intellectual property. With further research and understanding, best practices for undergraduate IP generation can be applied to avoid further IP challenges for faculty, students, and academic institutions. 

Evaluating the impact of entrepreneurship education is difficult given the heterogeneity of programming which presents challenges related to the generalizability of findings. The National Science Foundation’s Innovation-Corps (I-Corps) program, which incentivizes academic researchers to explore the commercialization potential of their research, offers a unique opportunity to examine the outcomes of entrepreneurship and technology commercialization training from an educational perspective given its standardization across populations and settings. We used the four-level Kirkpatrick Model for evaluating the impact of training and education programs to examine faculty experiences with I-Corps in depth. Using a qualitative inquiry methodology, we conducted 26 interviews with faculty innovators across three large public research institutions. Findings revealed that faculty had positive impressions of the program overall and attributed specific knowledge gains to participation. They also described behavioral changes impacting both their research and teaching. However, participants also identified challenges with I-Corps pedagogy and identified opportunities to improve training. This program evaluation and description of specific learning outcomes (skills, knowledge, attitude, and behaviors) contributes to best practices associated with delivering technology commercialization and entrepreneurship training to academic researchers. 

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.