Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the identity work of postgraduate students participating in an entrepreneurship training programme for life sciences. The paper aims to analyse what kind of entrepreneurial identities are constructed and in what ways in the context of the programme.

The paper relies on learning diaries and other written materials harvested from seven participants. Drawing on a social constructivist analysis, the materials were analysed by drawing attention to the kind of identities created, the contradictions that surfaced and how those were resolved in the written materials.

Two distinct entrepreneurial identities were constructed by the participants: the heroic and the humane. The first is the stereotypical role prototype that the participants experiment with. For the male participants this seems acceptable and normal. If they were in possession of more information, knowledge and skills they could identify with this heroic entrepreneurial identity. However, the female participants constructed an alternative identity; the humane entrepreneur running a low-tech firm with modest business goals or acting as an intrapreneur in an existing organisation.

Future research should consider entrepreneurship programmes as arenas for (gendered) identity work.

Entrepreneurship training should not only provide the participants with business knowledge and skills but facilitate their entrepreneurial identity work.

The paper contributes to understanding entrepreneurship education as a context for entrepreneurial identity construction and extends the understanding of the expected outcomes of entrepreneurship education programmes. The study demonstrates how entrepreneurial identity construction processes in the context of entrepreneurship training are gendered.

As business becomes increasingly global, it is important for managers to appreciate that practices that work well in one country may not work as well in other countries. This article compares cost center practices under Grenzplankostenrechnung (GPK), a common approach to cost accounting in Germany, and typical cost center practices in the United States. Differences between Germany and the United States on Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension and in workforce and management education provide possible explanations for differences in the responsibility assigned to cost center managers between Germany and the United States. Differences in cost center practices concerning classification of costs, measures to use when considering changes in costs, and the size and scope of the cost center between Germany and the United States all support these differences in cost center manager responsibility.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how an entrepreneurship program in the life-sciences impacts the development of their entrepreneurial skills and values in undergraduate students.

A quantitative study was conducted at Tecnologico de Monterrey, a private university in Mexico. Questionnaires were administered to life-sciences students before and after the entrepreneurship course to analyze and identify the development of pre-defined entrepreneurial characteristics.

Results indicate a positive and significant impact on several of the 13 entrepreneurial characteristics evaluated in the study (negotiation skills, need of achievement and initiative). Empirical insights gained in the study suggest that gender does not yield to differences in the degree of involvement in activities, and that previous entrepreneurship experience may contribute to enhanced engagement in the program.

The paper reports on students from one university campus. Future research should include students from other locations in the country.

It is evident that university entrepreneurship programs have an impact on students' skills and values; however, the challenge still remains in the design of those programs to include more activities and draw on the students' own competences.

This paper contributes with evidence from an entrepreneurship program implemented in a Latin American university, a region for which documentation of the degree of success of entrepreneurship education is limited in the literature.

Business accelerators have recently received increasing attention as important cogs in business ecosystem development. However, their exact role in the ecosystem is not yet well known, especially outside the IT sector. The purpose of this study is, therefore, twofold: to determine the position of life science accelerators in the business ecosystem and the attributes of support for companies and to identify key features of the life science accelerators that contribute to the change in business ecosystems.

The authors offer an exploratory case study of five life science business accelerators and analyze the main factors affecting the companies and the whole business ecosystem. The authors build upon the scarce literature on business accelerators and consider a new type of accelerator that specializes in life science projects and study its role in the transformation and evolution of the life science industry.

The authors have defined the role and key parameters of life science accelerators that influence the existing business ecosystems: (1) cooperation with other regions and countries, (2) development of entrepreneurial skills among participants of the business accelerators program and (3) a project on demand-based approach.

The key parameters of the life science accelerators allow to concentrate these efforts on the activities that are most demanded by the market. Business accelerators can increase the created value for other program participants.

We examine the origins, acceptance, and spread of academic entrepreneurship in the biomedical field at Stanford, a university that championed efforts at translating basic science into commercial application. With multiple data sources from 1970 to 2000, we analyze how entrepreneurship became institutionalized, stressing the distinction between factors that promoted such activity and those that sustained it. We address individual attributes, work contexts, and research networks, discerning the multiple influences that supported the commercialization of basic research and contributed to a new academic identity. We demonstrate how entrepreneurship expands from an uncommon undertaking to a venerated practice.

Passion and interest are the two principal drivers of competitive capitalism, and reconciling the two is conducive to a dynamic and welfare-generating economic system. On the level of the individual, the same categories can be applied to examining, for example, career choices, at times violating propositions regarding rational expectations as some categories of work include lower economic compensation or higher levels of risk than would be attractive to the median job applicant. The purpose of this paper is to examine how venture workers, employees of life, thinly capitalize science ventures, justify their career choices and how they act in order to create economic security for themselves and their families.

The study is based on a qualitative data collection methodology and reports on empirical research material from a study of co-workers at life science start-ups. The sample includes salaried employees working at venture capital-backed start-up companies in the life science sector.

The study indicates that passionate preferences regarding, for example, meaningful work in collaboration with peers, and the ability to participate in the creation of a new venture, have overshadowed the downside risks and the lower level of economic compensation vis-à-vis comparable work. Such findings indicate that deeply meaningful work is a useful analytical category, and that combinations of the favorable market pricing of skills and experiences, as well as state-funded welfare mechanisms, cushioning some of the market risk that employees are exposed to, will provide opportunities for venture labor, i.e. work done at thinly capitalized firms, such as start-ups, per se contributing to a dynamic industry.

The study contributes to the innovation management literature as it examines the key role of salaried venture workers, i.e. workers that do not hold contracts, granting them the right to compensation when venture capital investors make an exit. In addition, the study also discusses the literature on deeply meaningful work, stressing that this is a useful analytical category.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of R&D resources in early stage life sciences firms. It looks at how young firms use dynamic capabilities to develop R&D resources.

An in-depth case study approach was used to examine the research questions. It draws on longitudinal data collected from ten life science firms. Data were collected from three rounds of interviews with each case firm. A systematic theme analysis was conducted to analyse the results.

Results from the study indicate that a unique set of past decisions, future opportunities, assets, capabilities, and routines leads to the development of R&D resources. It is evident that scientific breakthroughs, partnership opportunities, the founders’ experience and the firm’s ability to integrate resources and learn from earlier paths are vital to the development of R&D resources.

This study extends the application of the dynamic capabilities framework to early stage life sciences ventures. It also demonstrates that dynamic capabilities can lead to the development of important resources.

The findings from this study provide prescriptive insights for evaluating alternatives on how to develop R&D resources in life sciences ventures.

Life sciences firms are critical to the modern global economy. However, little work examines how young, small life sciences firms develop R&D resources. Moreover, little work uses the dynamic capabilities framework as a lens to holistically examine how small firms develop R&D resources. This study helps to fill those gaps.

Life science innovation is a complex domain of professional work including scientific know-how, regulatory expertise, and commercialization and marketing skills. While the investment in basic life science research has soared over the last decades, resulting in a substantial growth in scientific know-how, the life science industry (and most notably pharmaceutical companies) unfortunately reports a meagre innovative output. In order to counteract waning innovation productivity, new organizational initiatives seek to better bridge and bond existing life science resources. The purpose of this paper is to report a case study of bio venture hub initiative located in a major multinational pharmaceutical company.

Drawing on institutional work literature, an empirical study based on case study methodology demonstrates that new life science collaborations demand both external and internal institutional work to challenge conventional wisdom, making the legal protection of intellectual properties a key factor in the field and that in turn complicates much firm collaborations. Such institutional work questions existing practices and opens up new pathways in life science innovation work.

The bio hub initiative, which in considerable ways breaks with the traditional in-house and new drug development activities located in enclosed R&D departments and in collaboration with clinical research organizations, demands extensive institutional work and political savoir-faire to create legitimacy and operational stability. Not only are there practical, legal, and regulatory issues to handle, but the long-term legitimacy and financial stability of the bio hub initiative demands support from both internal and external significant actors and stakeholders. The external institutional work in turn demands a set of skills in the bio venture hub’s management team, including detailed scientific and regulatory expertise, communicative skills, and the charisma and story-telling capacities to convince and win over sceptics. The internal institutional work, in turn, demands an understanding of extant legal frameworks and fiscal policies, the ability to handle a series of practical and administrative routines (i.e. how to procure the chemicals used in the laboratory work or how to make substance libraries available), and to serve as a “match-maker” between the bio venture hub companies and the experts located at the hosting company.

The case study provides first-hand empirical data from an unique initiative in the pharmaceutical industry to create novel collaborative spaces where small-sized life science companies can take advantage of the mature firm’s expertise and stock of know-how, also benefitting the hosting company as new collaborations unfold and providing a detailed understanding of ongoing life science innovation projects. In this view, all agencies embedded in institutional field (i.e. what has been addressed as “institutional work” – the active work to create, maintain, or disrupt institutions) both to some extent destabilize existing practise and create new practices better aligned with new conditions and relations between relevant and mutually dependent organizations. The empirical study supports the need for incorporating the concept of agency in institutional theory and thus contributes to the literature on institutional work by showing how one of the industries, the pharmaceutical industry, being strongly fortified by intellectual property rights (i.e. a variety of patents), inhibiting the free sharing of scientific and regulatory know-how and expertise, is in fact now being in the process of rethinking the “closed-doors” tradition of the industry. That is, the institutional work conducted in the bio venture hub is indicative of new ideas entering Big Pharma.

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

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

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

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

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