PDF(1104 KB)
PDF(1104 KB)
PDF(1104 KB)
角色重构视角下的学术创业模式差异性机理研究
Research on the mechanisms of variability in academic entrepreneurial models from the perspective of role reconstruction
学术创业包括多种类型,是推动科技成果转化的重要方式。加强学术创业模式差异化成因、相互关系和转换机制的研究,具有理论和政策应用价值。运用案例研究方法,基于角色认同、注意力基础观、资源编排等理论,从注意力分配结构、资源编排方式、行为三方面维度,解释学术创业模式差异性的原因。从动态过程视角,探究角色重构与学术创业行为之间的关联性。研究发现,学术创业多种类型可由学术创业者角色认同、注意力焦点和资源编排方式三个维度特征来界定。学术创业者的自我角色认同是决定其学术创业行为的根本因素。学术创业是一个动态过程,学术创业者在接触和了解市场过程中推动角色重构,选择合适的学术创业方式。角色重构过程中,由于价值导向、资源编排模式转换,促使其学术创业具体方式发生转变。本研究创新性地构建分析模型解释学术创业模式多样性的原因,以及各类模式的内在关联,描述学术创业模式转换的时序性特征及驱动机制,深化了对学术创业发展规律的认知,对于进一步优化学术创业政策环境具有借鉴价值。
Academic entrepreneurship encompasses various types and serves as a significant mechanism for driving the transformation of scientific and technological achievements. Investigating the origins, interrelations, and transformation mechanisms of academic entrepreneurship holds vital theoretical and policy implications. This study employed a case study approach and drew upon such theories as role identification, attention-based view, and resource orchestration to explain the reasons for the diversity in academic entrepreneurship from three aspects: attention allocation structure, resource allocation methods and behavior. From a dynamic process perspective, it investigated the relationship between role reconstruction and academic entrepreneurial behavior. The results revealed that different types of academic entrepreneurship can be defined by three-dimensional characteristics, namely, the role identity of academic entrepreneurs, their attention focus, and resource allocation methods. The self-identity of academic entrepreneurs stands as the fundamental determinant of their academic entrepreneurial behavior. Academic entrepreneurship is a dynamic process, and academic entrepreneurs drive role reconstruction while engaging with and understanding the market, ultimately selecting an appropriate academic entrepreneurial approach. In the process of role reconstruction, value orientations and the transformation of resource allocation patterns lead to shifts in the specific modes of academic entrepreneurship. This study innovatively constructed an analysis model to explain the reasons for the diversity of academic entrepreneurship models and the internal correlation of various models, described the timing characteristics and driving mechanism of the transformation of academic entrepreneurship models, deepened the understanding of the development law of academic entrepreneurship, thus having some reference values for further optimizing the policy environment of academic entrepreneurship.
academic entrepreneurship / role identification / attention-based view / resource orchestration
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
姚飞. 学者向创业者转型过程释意的多案例研究[J]. 南开管理评论, 2013, 16(1):138-148.
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
周炜, 蔺楠, 张茜. 学术创业:研究综述与展望[J]. 科研管理, 2022, 43(1):14-21.
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
Entrepreneurial ventures rely not only on founders but also on “joiners”—start-up employees who are attracted to entrepreneurship, but who do not want to be founders themselves. Drawing on both preference and contextual theories of entrepreneurship, we examine how individuals’ interest in being a founder, a joiner, or neither forms prior to the first career transition. We find that although individuals with founder and joiner interests share similar preferences for entrepreneurial job attributes such as autonomy and risk, their preferences for these attributes also differ in significantly meaningful ways. Contextual factors such as norms, role models, and opportunities exhibit very different relationships with founder and joiner interests. Most interestingly, our results suggest that preferences and context interrelate in unique ways to shape different entrepreneurial interests. In particular, an interest in being a founder is most strongly associated with individuals’ preferences for entrepreneurial job attributes, whereas contextual factors do little to shape a founder interest in individuals who lack these preferences. An interest in being a joiner, on the other hand, is associated with both preferences and context, and this relationship is most pronounced for individuals with preferences that predispose them toward entrepreneurship. This study highlights joiners as a distinct type of entrepreneurial actor and demonstrates the importance of considering the interplay between preferences and context in the study of entrepreneurship.
|
| [8] |
鞠伟, 周小虎. 学术创业与制度环境:制度激励下的大学科研人员创业意愿实证研究[J]. 南京社会科学, 2021(4):41-50.
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
Growing intensity of university—industry ties has generated an intense debate about the changing norms and practices of academic scientific work. This study challenges the protagonists’ views on the emergence of a dominant market ethos in academic science and growing influence of the ‘new school’ entrepreneurial scientists. It argues that academic scientists are active agents seeking to shape the relationships between science and business, and shows continued diversity in their work orientations. Drawing on neo-institutional theory and the notion of ‘boundary work’, the study examines how scientists seek to protect and negotiate their positions, and also make sense of their professional role identities. It identifies four different orientations: the ‘traditional’ and ‘entrepreneurial’, with two hybrid types in between. The hybrids are the dominant category and are particularly adept at exploiting the ambiguities of ‘boundary work’ between academia and industry. The study is based on 36 interviews and a survey sample of 734 academic scientists from five UK research universities.
|
| [11] |
黄攸立, 薛婷, 周宏. 学术创业背景下学者角色认同演变模式研究[J]. 管理学报, 2013, 10(3):438-443.
|
| [12] |
Organizational theory and research has increased attention to the determinants and consequences of attention in organizations. Attention is not, however, a unitary concept but is used differently in various metatheories: the behavioral theory of the firm, managerial cognition, issue selling, attention-based view, and ecology. At the level of the brain, neuroscientists have identified three varieties of attention: selective attention, executive attention, and vigilance. Attention is shaped by both top-down (i.e., schema-driven) and bottom-up (i.e., stimulus-driven) processes. Inspired by neuroscience research, I classify and compare three varieties of attention studied in organization science: attentional perspective (top-down), attentional engagement (combining top-down and bottom-up executive attention and vigilance), and attentional selection (the outcome of attentional processes). Based on research findings, I develop five propositions on how the varieties of attention in organization provide a theoretical alternative to theories of structural determinism or strategic choice, with a particular focus on the role of attention in explaining organizational adaptation and change.
|
| [13] |
Understanding why some firms outperform others is central to strategy research. The resource-based view (RBV) suggests that competitive advantages arise due to possessing strategic resources (i.e., assets that are valuable, rare, nonsubstitutable, and inimitable), and researchers have extended this logic to explain performance differences. However, RBV is relatively silent about the actions managers could use to create or capitalize on a resource-based advantage. Enriching RBV, the resource orchestration framework describes specific managerial actions that use such resources to realize performance gains. After reviewing the conceptual evolution of these two literature streams as well as related streams, we use meta-analytic structural equation modeling to aggregate evidence from 255 samples involving 111,120 observations to answer outstanding research questions regarding the strategic resources–actions–performance pathway. The results show strong complementarity and interdependence between their logics. Additional inquiry drawing on their complementarity is a clear path toward enhancing scholars’ understanding of how and why some firms outperform others. We build on our findings to lay a foundation for such inquiry, including a call for theorizing centered on the interdependence of resources and actions, as well as new theoretical terrain that can help resource-based inquiry continue to evolve.
|
| [14] |
张青, 华志兵. 资源编排理论及其研究进展述评[J]. 经济管理, 2020, 42(9):193-208.
|
| [15] |
In this article, the authors discuss how an emerging research stream, which they term resource orchestration, has the potential to extend the understanding of resource-based theory (RBT) by explicitly addressing the role of managers’ actions to effectively structure, bundle, and leverage firm resources. First, the authors review this emerging stream by comparing two related frameworks, resource management and asset orchestration. This comparison leads to their integration, which enables a more precise understanding of managers’ roles within RBT. Then the authors discuss what is known and what remains to be known about resource orchestration. This leads to in-depth reviews of three areas where research on resource orchestration can be used to extend RBT. These areas are (1) breadth (resource orchestration across the scope of the firm), (2) life cycle (resource orchestration at various stages of firm maturity), and (3) depth (resource orchestration across levels of the firm). They close with a discussion of future research that will extend resource orchestration and contribute to a more robust RBT.
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
感谢中国海洋大学管理学院韩立民教授对本文的宝贵建议。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
