In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs

By Christopher S. Hayter. 2011

166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0f7f34fe1e3b7844a8d433d0b3e3375841c60155

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The Effect of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations on Academics’ Entrepreneurial Intention (2016, background): “Exploiting the specification (1), it is possible to test for a relation between venture intention and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, in order to answer to the first two research questions.”
Harnessing University Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth (2013, background): “Previous studies define spin-off success as new firm establishment; given the literature review above along with related lines of inquiry (Hayter, 2011; Link & Ruhm, 2009), success is framed in terms of commercialization (Link, Siegel, & Bozeman, 2007).”
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs (2016, background): “Indeed, studies show that the individual academic entrepreneur, their entrepreneurial motivations and growth ambitions (Hayter 2011, 2015a; Lam 2011) social networks (Hayter 2013, 2016a; Rasmussen et al. 2015), backgrounds (O’Gorman et al. 2008), and access to resources 1 As of January 1, 2016,…”
Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer (2013, unknown): “Profit is the most obvious motivation, but there are also plenty of non-pecuniary motivators (Hayter, 2011).”
University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs (2016, background): “Other individual motives include seeking recognition by peers and the desire to be socially useful (Hayter 2011).”
Rethinking the Commercialization of Public Science: From Entrepreneurial Outcomes to Societal Impacts (2018, background): “Indeed, many academic entrepreneurs define success in terms of outcomes such as technology diffusion, technology development, public service, and peer motivations (Hayter, 2011).”
Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature (2018, background): “Specifically, peers potentially increase (or constrain) the propensity of their colleagues to engage with industry (Tartari et al. 2014), patent (Haeussler and Colyvas 2011; (Owen-Smith and Pow-ell 2001) and establish spinoff companies (Bergmann et al. 2016; Hayter 2011).”
The development, growth, and performance of university spin-offs: a critical review (2019, background): “…the significance of USOs, arguing that they are predominantly small firms (e.g., Criaco et al., 2014; Salvador, 2011), with negligible growth (e.g., Hayter, 2011; Wright et al., 2006) and a limited economic impact that do not justify the public support that they receive (e.g., Harrison and Leitch,…”