PDF(1109 KB)
PDF(1109 KB)
PDF(1109 KB)
科技人员混合创业与科技成果转化的关系研究
A study on the relationship between hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel and transformation of S&T achievements
科技人员混合创业是科技成果转化的重要方式,但现有研究对两者内在关联仍缺乏深入阐释。本研究基于“知识整合”理论,构建了科技人员混合创业—知识整合—科技成果转化之间的链式关系概念模型,并将环境不确定性作为调节变量,以湖北省326家科技人员混合创业企业作为样本进行了实证研究。研究发现:科技人员混合创业对科技成果利用式转化具有显著的正向影响,对科技成果探索式转化的正向影响不显著;科技人员混合创业对知识整合具有显著的正向影响;知识整合对科技人员混合创业与科技成果利用式转化之间的关系发挥中介作用;环境不确定性对科技人员混合创业与科技成果利用式转化之间的关系发挥正向调节作用;研究结论揭示了科技人员混合创业在促进探索式科技成果转化方面存在着局限性。本研究对政府和相关单位(科研院所及高校)鼓励和支持科技人员创业和科技成果转化相关政策的优化具有参考价值。
Hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel is an important way to transform scientific and technological achievements, but existing studies still lack an in-depth interpretation of the internal correlation between the two. Based on the theory of “knowledge integration”, a conceptual model of the chain relationship among hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel, knowledge integration, and S&T achievement transformation was constructed. Environmental uncertainty was used as a moderating variable. Then, an empirical study was conducted using 326 S&T-based hybrid entrepreneurial enterprises in Hubei Province as samples. Research has found that the hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel has a significant positive impact on exploitative transformation of S&T achievements, while the positive impact on exploratory transformation of S&T achievements is not significant; The hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel has a significant positive impact on knowledge integration; Knowledge integration plays a mediating role in the relationship between hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel and exploitative transformation of S&T achievements; Environmental uncertainty plays a positive moderating role in the relationship between hybrid entrepreneurship by S&T personnel and exploitative transformation of S&T achievements. This paper reveals the limitations of hybrid entrepreneurship of S&T personnel in promoting exploratory transformation of S&T achievements. This study will provide reference value for governments, research institutes and universities to optimize the policies related to encouraging and supporting S&T personnel’s entrepreneurship and transformation of S&T achievements.
科技人员 / 混合创业 / 知识整合 / 科技成果利用式转化 / 科技成果探索式转化
S&T personnel / hybrid entrepreneurship / knowledge integration / exploitative transformation of S&T achievements / exploratory transformation of S&T achievements
| [1] |
贺德方. 对科技成果及科技成果转化若干基本概念的辨析与思考[J]. 中国软科学, 2011(11):1-7.
|
| [2] |
俞立平, 朱莹, 金鹏, 等. 数字化转型、高技术产业技术创新与成果转化[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2023(12):72-83.
|
| [3] |
庞长伟. 自主创新还是引进创新?:合作效率对创新模式转换的影响[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(5):97-103.
创新已成为企业参与市场竞争、获取创新绩效的关键。基于资源来源差异，创新可分为自主创新和引进创新两种。诸多研究探讨了自主创新对企业绩效的正向影响，但自主创新并非适合所有企业，当前缺乏对企业创新模式转换的研究。对177家中国企业数据进行了实证研究，结果发现相比于引进创新，自主创新对企业绩效的正向作用更显著；而当企业与联盟伙伴具有良好的合作关系时，企业更倾向于实施引进创新。同时，还以调研企业为案例研究了合作效率对创新模式转换的影响。将创新理论和联盟理论联系起来，具有一定的理论意义和实践指导价值。
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
郭强, 夏向阳, 赵莉. 高校科技成果转化影响因素及对策研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2012, 29(6):151-153.
以分析高校科技成果转化内涵为切入点,通过追溯已有文献,系统梳理了影响科技成果转化的六大内部因素,即科技成果的特性、转化意愿、传授能力、关系信任、吸收能力、转化能力,以及科技中介服务能力、政策与制度促进和社会文化塑造三大外部影响因素,最后针对高校、企业、政府、科技中介机构以及专业媒体,提出对策建议。
|
| [6] |
邓向荣, 羊柳青, 冯学良. 企业国际合作研发能否促进科技成果转化:从知识创新到产品创新[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2022(8):107-118.
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
林青宁, 毛世平. 自主创新与企业科技成果转化:补助亦或政策[J]. 科学学研究, 2023, 41(1):70-79.
自主创新是涉农企业构建技术壁垒的重要途径，但存在长周期、高风险等问题，单纯依靠市场调节难以实现帕累托最优，必须发挥政府的调控作用。基于此，本文以9959家涉农企业为样本，在使用SSBM-网络DEA模型测算涉农企业科技成果转化效率的基础上，实证检验自主创新对科技成果转化效率的影响，并探究政府行为（政府补助与创新政策）的调节效应。研究结果显示：（1）自主创新与涉农企业科技成果转化效率之间存在倒“U”型关系。（2）政府补助与创新政策均正向调节自主创新未超过阈值时对科技成果转化效率的正向影响。但创新政策有助于缓解自主创新超过阈值后对科技成果转化效率的负向影响，而政府补助却未起到相应的缓解作用。研究结论不仅提供了涉农企业开展自主创新活动的证据，还为政府与涉农企业优化自主创新提供了支撑。
Independent innovation is an important way for agricultural enterprises to build technical barriers, but there are problems such as long-term, high-risk, etc. It is difficult to achieve Pareto optimality by relying solely on market regulation, and the government's regulatory role must be exerted. Based on this, this article takes 9959 agricultural enterprises as a sample, and uses the SSBM-network DEA model to measure the transformation efficiency of agricultural enterprises’ scientific and technological achievements, empirically examines the impact of independent innovation on the transformation efficiency of scientific and technological achievements, and explores government behavior (government Subsidies and innovation policies). The research results show that: (1) There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between independent innovation and the efficiency of transformation of scientific and technological achievements of agricultural enterprises. (2) Both government subsidies and innovation policies positively regulate the positive impact of independent innovation on the conversion efficiency of scientific and technological achievements when independent innovation does not exceed the threshold. However, innovation policies help alleviate the negative impact of independent innovation on the conversion efficiency of scientific and technological achievements after exceeding the threshold, while government subsidies have not played a corresponding mitigation effect. The research conclusions not only provide evidence of independent innovation activities carried out by agricultural enterprises, but also provide support for the government and agricultural enterprises to optimize independent innovation.
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
In contrast to previous efforts to model an individual's movement from wage work into entrepreneurship, we consider that individuals might transition incrementally by retaining their wage job while entering into self-employment. We show that these hybrid entrepreneurs represent a significant share of all entrepreneurial activity. Theoretical arguments are proposed to suggest why hybrid entrants are distinct from self-employment entrants, and why hybrid entry may facilitate subsequent entry into full self-employment. We demonstrate that there are significant theoretical and empirical consequences for this group and our understanding of self-employment entry and labor market dynamics. Using matched employee–employer data over eight years, we test the model on a population of Swedish wage earners in the knowledge-intensive sector.
|
| [11] |
尹西明, 武沛琦, 钱雅婷, 等. 面向新质生产力培育的科技成果转化:场景范式与实践进路[J]. 科学与管理, 2024(3):1-6+103.
|
| [12] |
陈劲, 朱子钦. 探索以企业为主导的创新发展模式[J]. 创新科技, 2021, 21(5):1-7.
|
| [13] |
陈柏强, 王伟, 盛琼, 等. 论正确处理高校教师离岗创业和科技成果转化的关系[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2016, 28(5):132-136.
|
| [14] |
宗倩倩. 高校科技成果转化现实障碍及其破解机制[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2023, 40(4):106-113.
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
刘志阳, 吴桂兴. 混合创业:一种进退有据的创业新模式[J]. 山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2022(1):141-156.
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
李玥, 刘希宋, 喻登科. 科技成果转化的知识整合模式及策略[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2010(4):24-27.
|
| [19] |
陈力, 宣国良. 跨功能知识整合对新产品开发绩效的影响[J]. 科学学研究, 2006, 24(6):921-928.
|
| [20] |
林琳. 科技成果转化人才的知识整合过程运行机理研究:基于系统动力学的视角[J]. 情报杂志, 2010, 29(12):159-161.
|
| [21] |
林筠, 刘冰蕊, 蔡颖, 等. 不同类型知识整合对中试有效性的影响[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2023, 40(24):123-132.
中试滞后的负面“瓶颈”效应是导致我国科技成果转化率低的关键因素之一。基于此，研究特定领域知识、程序性知识、一般知识三类知识整合影响中试有效性的差异性及其交互作用对中试有效性的影响。研究结果表明：①特定领域知识整合对中试有效性的促进作用优于程序性知识整合与一般知识整合；②程序性知识整合、一般知识整合与特定领域知识整合的交互均对中试有效性产生积极影响，且作用效果强于其单独作用；③程序性知识整合与一般知识整合的交互对中试有效性无显著影响，但在加入特定领域知识整合后，三类知识整合的交互对中试有效性的促进效应增强；④不同性质、不同规模、不同地区企业的中试有效性存在差异。上述研究从不同类型知识整合视角为探究中试实现机制提供了数据支持，有助于进一步明晰中试运行过程。
|
| [22] |
林筠, 吴鹏飞, 吴莹莹, 等. 科技成果转化过程中高校实验室验证有效性的前因探索[J]. 管理评论, 2022, 34(3):163-173.
|
| [23] |
张慧慧. 高校科技成果转化的促进机制研究[J]. 科研管理, 2025, 46(9):136-144.
|
| [24] |
戚湧, 朱婷婷, 郭逸. 科技成果市场转化模式与效率评价研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2015(6):184-192.
|
| [25] |
– The purpose of this paper is to investigate the motives behind individuals’ choice to have parallel business-employment careers (hybrid entrepreneurship) with a particular focus on passion (i.e. to work with something one is passionate about) as the main motive.
|
| [26] |
孙俊, 商波. 高校教师的兼职创业动机研究:基于自主创新视角的实证检验[J]. 科技管理研究, 2022, 42(1):199-207.
|
| [27] |
刘思萌, 吕扬. 创业企业的网络嵌入性、知识整合和创新绩效的影响研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2019, 39(24):85-90.
|
| [28] |
胡汉辉, 周治翰. 试论企业核心能力的知识整合特征[J]. 管理工程学报, 2001(4):16-19+3.
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
单标安, 蒲怡, 闫双慧, 等. 不确定性情境下科技成果转化对科技型新企业绩效的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2021, 18(7):1032-1039.
构建即兴能力、技术商业化、环境不确定性与企业绩效间的关系模型。通过对深圳、广州等城市的315份科技型新企业样本的实证研究发现：①即兴能力是科技型新企业应对内外部变革环境的关键能力，且积极影响新企业技术商业化能力；②技术商业化能力积极影响科技型新企业绩效；③科技型新企业的即兴能力通过技术商业化能力而间接影响绩效，即技术商业化在即兴能力与科技型新企业绩效关系间存在中介作用；④环境不确定性强化了即兴能力与技术商业化能力间的关系。
This study constructs a theoretical model to reveal the relationships among improvisational capability, technology commercialization capability, environmental uncertainty and new venture performance. Based on the empirical study of 315 new venture samples in China, four main findings have been concluded. First, improvisation capability has a positive influence on new ventures’ technology commercialization capability. Second, technology commercialization capability positively effects on technology-based new venture performance. Third, technology commercialization capability has a positive mediating role in the relationship between improvisation capability and new venture performance. Fourth, environmental uncertainty strengthens the relationship between improvisational capabilities and technological commercialization capabilities.
|
| [33] |
钟莉. 跨界搜索、知识整合对员工创新绩效的影响研究[D]. 成都: 西南财经大学, 2021.
|
| [34] |
石善冲. 科技成果转化评价指标体系研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2003(6):31-33.
|
| [35] |
Research on exploration and exploitation is burgeoning, yet our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of both activities remains rather unclear. We advance the growing body of literature by focusing on the apparent differences of exploration and exploitation and examining implications for using formal (i.e., centralization and formalization) and informal (i.e., connectedness) coordination mechanisms. This study further examines how environmental aspects (i.e., dynamism and competitiveness) moderate the effectiveness of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Results indicate that centralization negatively affects exploratory innovation, whereas formalization positively influences exploitative innovation. Interestingly, connectedness within units appears to be an important antecedent of both exploratory and exploitative innovation. Furthermore, our findings reveal that pursuing exploratory innovation is more effective in dynamic environments, whereas pursuing exploitative innovation is more beneficial to a unit’s financial performance in more competitive environments. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how ambidextrous organizations coordinate the development of exploratory and exploitative innovation in organizational units and successfully respond to multiple environmental conditions.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
