Examining the differences between the motivations of traditional and entrepreneurial scientists

Abstract

In recent decades, the rise of the entrepreneurial university and the need for commercialization of university knowledge has gained significant attention, thus posing major challenges for higher education institutions. The adequacy of commercialization requirements causes problems not only for institutions but also for individual researchers as well. Although an increasing number of scholars are focusing on researchers’ motivation in academic entrepreneurship, there is still a lack of surveys that investigate the motivational differences by specific group of academics. In this study, our aim is to investigate motivational differences among specific groups of researchers at 20 Hungarian higher education institutions. We distinguished academics into two segments: entrepreneurial scientists plan to commercialize their research results at a spin-off company, while traditional scientists show no interest in this. Our results suggest that there are differences and significant relationships with entrepreneurial intention in the case of direct control over the commercialization process, securing jobs for young researchers at one’s spin-off company, and the desire to demonstrate the practical relevance of one’s research to family/friends. With regard to previous experience, managerial experience gained at companies may play also an important role.

Full text

R E S E A R C H Open Access
Examining the differences between the
motivations of traditional and
entrepreneurial scientists
Sándor Huszár
1,2
, Szabolcs Prónay
1,2
and Norbert Buzás
1,3*
* Correspondence:
buzas@kmcenter.szte.hu
1
Knowledge Management Research
Center, University of Szeged,
Szeged, HU, Hungary
3
Department of Health Economics,
Faculty of Medicine, University of
Szeged, Szeged, HU, Hungary
Full list of author information is
available at the end of the article
Abstract
In recent decades, the rise of the entrepreneurial university and the need for
commercialization of university knowledge has gained significant attention, thus
posing major challenges for higher education institutions. The adequacy of
commercialization requirements causes problems not only for institutions but also
for individual researchers as well. Although an increasing number of scholars are
focusing on researchers’motivation in academic entrepreneurship, there is still a lack
of surveys that investigate the motivational differences by specific group of
academics. In this study, our aim is to investigate motivational differences among
specific groups of researchers at 20 Hungarian higher education institutions. We
distinguished academics into two segments: entrepreneurial scientists plan to
commercialize their research results at a spin-off company, while traditional scientists
show no interest in this. Our results suggest that there are differences and significant
relationships with entrepreneurial intention in the case of direct control over the
commercialization process, securing jobs for young researchers at one’s spin-off
company, and the desire to demonstrate the practical relevance of one’s research to
family/friends. With regard to previous experience, managerial experience gained at
companies may play also an important role.
Keywords: Motivation, Intention, Researchers, Entrepreneurship, University
JEL classification: L26, I23, O33
Background
Universities contribute greatly to social development with their educational and re-
search activities. In recent decades, the rise of the entrepreneurial university and the
need for commercialization of university knowledge has gained significant attention,
thus posing major challenges for higher education institutions (Etzkowitz 1998).
In our knowledge-based economy, the role of universities is increasingly important
(Laredo and Mustar 2001) because they play a significant role in innovation and eco-
nomic development (Mansfield and Lee 1996). Academic knowledge can also contrib-
ute to economic growth, while the more a company applies university knowledge in its
business activities, the more economic growth can be achieved. But only a small pro-
portion of university knowledge is applied by industrial actors, a fact which can be ex-
plained by the scarce knowledge flow channels between academia and industry
Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurshi
p
© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25
DOI 10.1186/s13731-016-0054-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

(Mueller 2006). In the commercialization of university knowledge, spin-off companies
can act as intermediaries. In this case, the researcher can commercialize his research
results at his own spin-off company, and he or she can thus retain control over the fur-
ther development of the invention and the commercialization process.
Universities were traditionally the centers of knowledge production, although usual-
ly—in the case of second-generation universities—the knowledge application only
meant education and the spread of scientific publications (Wissema 2009). By the end
of the twentieth century, the process of knowledge application altered and the “third-
generation”universities emerged, where the gates were opened for the
commercialization of research results and (early stage) technologies produced at uni-
versities were introduced to the market, so the commercial application of knowledge
became predominant (Wissema 2009). Etzkowitz (1983) called these institutions as
“entrepreneurial universities”where the applied research and the knowledge applica-
tion gained importance. The industrial relationships of universities began to expand,
and special institutions—like technology transfer offices—were established to coord-
inate them (Buzás 2005; Bercovitz and Feldmann 2006). In the knowledge-based
economy of the twenty-first century, this process has gained a new impetus; the
“fourth-generation”universities have emerged where knowledge has become the foun-
dation stone of the economy of a region. These institutions influence their environ-
ment including the community and the society of the region in a proactive way
(Pawlowski 2009; Prónay–Buzás 2015). Concerning this phenomenon, it is important
to note that according to Carayannis and Campbell’s (2006) understanding, these generations
can be seen not only as successive phases but also as different innovation models that can be
perceived simultaneously. The authors call it mode 3 approach where pluralism of different
knowledge and innovation modes (paradigms) coexists (Carayannis and Campbell 2010).
The adequacy of commercialization requirements causes problems not only for
institutions but also for individual researchers as well. Participation in the
commercialization process can threaten academic freedom (Nelson 2004) and create diffi-
culties in fundamental research and publication activities (Arvanitis et al. 2008). However,
it is necessary that the inventor should be enthusiastic for commercialization of research
results to succeed through spin-off creation (Blair and Hitchens 1998). Furthermore, we
usually cannot expect researchers to determine the possible application areas or the com-
mercial potential of the invention (Nilsson et al. 2010). Recent studies highlight various
factors that influence researchers’decision-making process related to commercialization,
including institutional, organizational, and individual factors (Perkmann et al. 2013).
Thornton (1999) distinguished two groups of influencing factors. The former group in-
cludes attitudes towards commercialization and the personal characteristics of the re-
searchers, which affect the intrinsic motivations of the individual (supply-side), while the
latter group of factors consists of institutional and organizational factors (demand-side).
In our study, we will approach the individuals’motivation; thus, organizational and insti-
tutional factors are excluded in our investigation.
With regard to the personal characteristics of the inventor, there are two important
areas which can highly influence the possible commercial outcomes of the invention.
Firstly, we have to consider the ability of the researcher to determine possible applica-
tion areas and acquire financial resources for commercialization. Secondly, we must
take aspiration into account, which reflects on the willingness of the researcher to
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 2 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

engage in commercialization (Hoye and Pries 2009). The determination of the possible
application areas greatly depends on the individual’s technical expertise, previous ex-
perience gained in commercialization, and his or her industrial network outside aca-
demia. Furthermore, the incentives provided, perceived risks, and expected benefits
with respect to commercialization play an important role in one’s participation in uni-
versity–industry activities (Phan and Siegel 2006).
The tacit knowledge of the inventor also requires the participation of the scientist in
the transfer of early-stage technologies (Shane 2004). In this regard, the successful ap-
plication of the invention is questionable without particular knowledge about the tech-
nology that is possessed by the inventor. If the researcher finds it difficult to participate
in the technology transfer or does not want to, it is difficult to apply the invention in
an industrial environment (Siegel et al. 2003; Stevens and Bagby 1999).
Although the major obstacles noted above can greatly influence the successful
commercialization of university scientific results, the international literature has not fo-
cused on individual researchers sufficiently (Ankrah et al. 2013). In this study, our aim
is to investigate motivational differences among specific groups of researchers. We dis-
tinguished academics into two segments: entrepreneurial scientists plan to
commercialize their research results at a spin-off company, while traditional scientists
show no interest in this. We assumed that these two groups of scientists differ in moti-
vations, and we wanted to determine these motivations.
Researchers’motivations
Among the influencing factors in academic entrepreneurship, we consider individual moti-
vations as the most important. Even at the best performing universities, disclosure of com-
mercializable scientific results tothetechnologytransferofficeandwillingnesstoparticipate
in commercialization depend on the individuals’motivations and intention (Shane 2004)
despite their obligation to inventive activities. However, the technology transfer units at the
universities are not able to monitor all the current research and development projects; thus,
there are commercializable results which remainhiddenfromtechnologytransferoffices.
Researchers consider the possible benefits and drawbacks of commercialization, which is
greatly influenced by their motivation and attitudes (Lee 1998). Previous studies have deter-
mined many factors that influence individuals’entrepreneurial intention or their participa-
tion in university–industry activities. The results of recent studies will be demonstrated in
the following groups: development-driven motivations, finance-driven motivations,
reputation-driven motivations, commercialization-driven motivations, and job security-
driven motivations.
There is an uncertainty related to a university invention because nobody knows the ap-
plicability of scientific results in an industrial environment. Therefore, academics continu-
ously expect industrial feedback from companies (Arvanitis et al. 2008). Both parties, the
university and industry, also show an interest in gathering information about applicability;
otherwise, it is more difficult to determine the commercial potential of the invention
(Prónay and Buzás 2015). Therefore, the need to collect industrial feedback about the
application of the invention can play an important role in an individual’s motivations.
An increase of personal income is a well-known motivational factor in the literature,
which can effectively motivate individuals to participate in commercialization (Nilsson
et al. 2010; Renault 2006). However, other scholars have only found an indirect effect of
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 3 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

monetary incentives towards entrepreneurial intention, and the expected increase in per-
sonal income can only influence attitudes towards entrepreneurship directly (Goethner et
al. 2012). Those researchers who are mainly motivated by financial incentives are more
willing to establish a spin-off company to bring the technology to the market (D’Este and
Perkmann 2011). Opposite results have been achieved as well: Azagra-Caro et al. (2008)
found that non-monetary incentives play a more important role than monetary motiva-
tions. This poses challenges for universities and policy makers because providing non-
monetary incentives is more difficult. D’Este and Perkmann (2011) also suggest that uni-
versities should focus on non-monetary incentives to foster academic entrepreneurship.
Besides personal income, another finance-related motivation is the need to obtain finan-
cial resources for further research (Nilsson et al. 2010). Although researchers fear that
university–industry interactions may threaten intellectual freedom, which is one of the
most important values in academia, university–industry interactions create new oppor-
tunities to obtain financial resources from industrial partners (Lee 1998).
The desire to increase prestige also plays an important role in academics’motivation
(Dietz and Bozemann 2005), which is an integral part of academic life, because the
main objective of demonstrating research results through conference participation and
publications is to boost one’s reputation in the academic environment. Such activities
can contribute to a gain in reputation not only at the university but also in industry as
well (Siegel et al. 2003). Participation in university–industry interactions can also affect
confidence in the individual researcher among industrial actors (Jacob et al. 2000).
However, contrary to the previous results, Goethner et al. (2012) found no relationship
between expected gain in reputation and entrepreneurial intention. One explanation
may be that while entrepreneurship only provides benefits to one’s reputation in indus-
try, entrepreneurial activities are not associated with additional gain in reputation in
academia (Arvanitis et al. 2008).
There is an increasing need in society for universities to contribute to economic devel-
opment and to utilize knowledge outside academia with industrial actors (Liefner and
Schiller 2008; Siegel et al. 2003). The desire to apply inventions in practice is another mo-
tivational factor among academics (Nilsson et al. 2010) because the original aim of re-
search is to apply new knowledge for practical use. However, in most cases, academics do
not possess the appropriate expertise to explore possible application areas for the inven-
tion and industrial partners also cannot determine the potential benefits of research re-
sults, thus hindering technology transfer between academia and industry. This standoff is
called the science to market gap in the literature (Hellman 2005). Academics’entrepre-
neurial intention can fill this gap and bring technologies to the market. At the spin-off
company, the inventor can continue the development process under more flexible condi-
tions following feedback from industrial partners than he or she would experience in the
academic environment. In this regard, the desire to put the invention to practical use and
provide benefits for society can be achieved (Nilsson et al. 2010).
Establishing a spin-off company and commercializing university research create em-
ployment opportunities. New jobs are available not only for senior scientists and inventors
but also for young researchers and students as well. These students have not yet com-
pleted their studies or started their scientific careers; therefore, they are employed with
fixed-term contracts while waiting for vacancies at the university (Lam 2007). However, in
most cases, with a lack of academic positions, these young researchers cannot continue
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 4 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

their scientific careers in academia. Thus, they look for other employment opportunities,
such as establishing a spin-off company in their field of expertise (Rizzo 2015).
As we have seen, there are various motivations that can influence academics’partici-
pation in university–industry interaction and academic entrepreneurship. In our study,
entrepreneurial intention plays a central role in the investigation of motivations.
Entrepreneurial intention in academia has also been investigated by other scholars
(Goethner et al. 2012; Kautonen et al. 2011; Krueger and Carsrud 1993; Küttim et al.
2014; Yurtkorua et al. 2014). The significant proportion of studies that focus on entre-
preneurial intention build on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), while we in-
vestigated the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and motivations towards
commercializing research results through spin-off creation.
Results and discussions
Research results
In this section, we demonstrate the research results of the survey with a focus on the mo-
tivational differences between the traditional and entrepreneurial scientists. These results
can highlight which motivations can play an important role in entrepreneurial intention.
Motivations towards entrepreneurial intention
First, we analyzed the motivational factors. Figure 1 summarizes the importance of the
different motivational factors. According to the researchers, the two most important mo-
tivational factors are to obtain financial resources for further research (M4) and to ensure
an ecosystem that is more flexible than the university for the further development of their
invention (M2). To increase personal income (M3), to collect industrial feedback (M1), to
benefit society with their invention (M9), to ensure direct control over the
commercialization of their invention (M8), and to secure jobs for young researchers
(M10) also play an important role. Surprisingly, a strong reputation, including a scientific
4.32
4.31
4.23
4.19
4.19
4.10
4.03
3.80
3.10
3.08
2.77
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
M4 - to obtain financial resources for further research
M2 - to ensure an ecosystem that is more flexible than the
university for the further development of my invention
M3 - to increase my personal income from my entrepreneurial
activities
M1 - to collect industrial feedback on the applicability of my
invention
M9 - to benefit society with my invention
M8 - to ensure direct control over the commercialization of my
invention
M10 - to secure jobs for young researchers at my spin-off
company
M11 - to secure a job if my university position is terminated
M6 - to increase my social reputation through entrepreneurship
M5 - to increase my scientific reputation through
entrepreneurship
M7 - to demonstrate the practical relevance of my research to
family/friends
Fig. 1 Researchers’motivation (mean of responses between 1 and 5). Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 5 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

(M5) and a social (M6) reputation, and to demonstrate the practical relevance of their re-
search (M7) were ranked lower as the motivational factors than other motivations.
Comparing the opinions of traditional and entrepreneurial scientists, we found differ-
ences between the two groups (Fig. 2). In summary, entrepreneurial scientists value all
the motivations more highly than traditional scientists. As we can see, there are three
motivations where the gap between the two groups is higher than in other cases: to en-
sure direct control over the commercialization of their invention (M8), to secure jobs
for young researchers at their spin-off company (M10), and to demonstrate the prac-
tical relevance of their research to family/friends (M7) (Appendix 2). There are only
slight differences with regard to the other motivational factors.
In order to test statistically the motivational differences between traditional and
entrepreneurial scientists, we used an independent-samples ttest to compare opinions
(Appendix 3). The results confirm the previous observation, which assumes that there
are differences regarding direct control over commercialization (M8, ttest (equal vari-
ances assumed) sig. = 0.029), jobs for young researchers (M10, ttest (equal variances
assumed) sig. = 0.027), and the need to demonstrate the practical relevance of research
to family and friends. Researchers’opinions about the other motivations have not been
proven different from a statistical point of view.
4.29
4.10
4.27
4.20
4.01
4.20
4.15
3.72
3.03
2.67
3.08
4.57
4.52
4.50
4.47
4.43
4.40
4.30
4.00
3.33
3.33
3.27
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
M4 - to obtain financial resources for further
research
M8 - to ensure direct control over the
commercialization of my invention
M2 - to ensure an ecosystem that is more flexible
than the university for the further development of
my invention
M1 - to collect industrial feedback on the
applicability of my invention
M10 - to secure jobs for young researchers at my
spin-off company
M3 - to increase my personal income from my
entrepreneurial activities
M9 - to benefit society with my invention
M11 - to secure a job if my university position is
terminated
M5 - to increase my scientific reputation through
entrepreneurship
M7 - to demonstrate the practical relevance of my
research to family/friends
M6 - to increase my social reputation through
entrepreneurship
Traditional scientists Entrepreneurial scientists
Fig. 2 Motivational differences between traditional and entrepreneurial scientists (mean of responses
between 1 and 5). Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 6 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Although we found evidence of motivational differences, we also wanted to test the
relationship between motivational factors and entrepreneurial intention. We used cor-
relation to investigate the relationship between the variables (Appendix 4). According
to the results, to ensure direct control over the commercialization of my invention
(M8, Pearson corr. = 0.120*, sig. = 0.047, N= 275), to demonstrate the practical rele-
vance of my research to family/friends (M7, Pearson corr. = 0.240**, sig. = 0.000, N=
291), to increase my scientific reputation through entrepreneurship (M5, Pearson
corr. = 0.187**, sig. = 0.001, N= 291), to secure jobs for young researchers at my spin-
off company (M10, Pearson corr. = 0.166**, sig. = 0.005, N= 290), and to obtain finan-
cial resources for further research (M4, Pearson corr. = 0.133*, sig. = 0.022, N=295)were
proven significant and demonstrated weak or medium strength to entrepreneurial
intention. Due to a statistical debate relating to the measurement and recognition of
Likert scales, we calculated the Spearman correlations as well, where two motivations
lost their significance (to ensure direct control over the commercialization of my
invention, M8, Pearson corr. = 0.057, sig. = 0.345, N= 275 and to obtain financial re-
sources for further research, M4, Pearson corr. = 0. 109, sig. = 0. 062, N= 295).
Thus, the results relating to these two motivations should be interpreted carefully,
because tests for the relationship with the entrepreneurial intention demonstrate
different results. Since, we perceive Likert scales as interval scales—otherwise mean
and standard deviation cannot be computed—we accept the results of the Pearson
correlation method.
Previous research and managerial experience
We wanted to investigate not only motivations but also previous experience as well.
Using an independent-samples ttest to comparing experience, we concluded that there are
differences between traditional and entrepreneurial scientists regarding the research (EXP-
COM-RES, ttest (equal variances assumed) sig. = 0.004) and managerial (EXP-COM-MAN,
ttest (equal variances assumed) sig. = 0.039) experience gained at companies (Appendix 5).
According to the results, those researchers who plan to commercialize their research results
in a spin-off company have gained more research and managerial experience at companies
than traditional researchers who do not show any interest in entrepreneurship.
With regard to the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and previous ex-
perience, the results suggest that research experience at universities (EXP-HEI-RES,
Pearson corr. = 0.139**, sig. = 0.007, N= 375) and managerial experience at companies
(EXP-COM-MAN, Pearson corr. = 0.158**, sig. = 0.002, N= 380) are associated with
entrepreneurial intention (Appendix 6). Therefore, the more university research experi-
ence and the more managerial experience at companies, the higher the propensity for
establishing a spin-off company for the commercialization of scientific results.
Summary of results
Table 1 summarizes the research results and statistical methods described above. Ac-
cording to the results, we can observe differences and significant relationships with
entrepreneurial intention in the case of direct control over the commercialization
process (M8), securing jobs for young researchers at one’s spin-off company (M10),
and the desire to demonstrate the practical relevance of one’s research to family/friends
(M7). With regard to previous experience, managerial experience gained at companies
may play an important role. Although there were significant differences between the
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 7 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

traditional and entrepreneurial scientists in the research experience gained at compan-
ies, the relationship to entrepreneurial intention did not prove important.
Concluding remarks
We have demonstrated the research results of the survey we carried out at 20 Hungarian
higher education institutions. The aim was to investigate the major motivational factors re-
lated to entrepreneurial intention. Two groups of researchers were formed based on their
entrepreneurial intention: while the traditional scientists did not want to establish a spin-
off company for the commercialization of recent research results, the entrepreneurial sci-
entists planned to commercialize their inventions through entrepreneurship within 1 year.
Table 1 Summary of results
Variables Differences between traditional and
entrepreneurial researchers (method:
independent-samples ttest)
Relationship with
entrepreneurial intention
(method: correlation)
Motivations
Development-driven motivations
M1—to collect industrial feedback
on the applicability of my invention
No difference No relationship
M2—to ensure an ecosystem that is
more flexible than the university for the
further development of my invention
No difference No relationship
Finance-driven motivations
M3—to increase my personal income
from my entrepreneurial activities
No difference No relationship
M4—to obtain financial resources for
further research
No difference Weak positive
relationship
Reputation-driven motivations
M5—to increase my scientific
reputation through entrepreneurship
No difference Medium positive
relationship
M6—to increase my social reputation
through entrepreneurship
No difference No relationship
M7—to demonstrate the practical
relevance of my research to family/friends
Significant difference Medium positive
relationship
Commercialization-driven motivations
M8—to ensure direct control over the
commercialization of my invention
Significant difference Weak positive
relationship
M9—to benefit society with my
invention
No difference No relationship
Job security-driven motivations
M10—to secure jobs for young
researchers at my spin-off company
Significant difference Medium positive
relationship
M11—to secure a job if my university
position is terminated
No difference No relationship
Experience
Research experience at a university
(EXP-HEI-RES)
No difference Medium positive
relationship
Research experience at a company
(EXP-COM-RES)
Significant difference No relationship
Managerial experience at a company
(EXP-COM-MAN)
Significant difference Medium positive
relationship
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 8 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

We assumed that the researchers would not differ in their entrepreneurial intentions,
but in their motivations towards commercialization of scientific results. Although the
respondents valued many motivations as important, the results highlight the fact that
the most important motivational differences between the traditional and entrepreneur-
ial researchers can be observed in exercising control over the commercialization
process (M8), securing jobs for young researchers at their spin-off company (M10), and
demonstrating the practical relevance of their research to family/friends (M7). With re-
gard to experience, managerial experience gained at companies (EXP-COM-MAN)
plays the most important entrepreneurship-related role.
We could not find significant differences in the development-driven motivations be-
tween the two groups or a notable relationship between motivations and entrepreneurial
intention despite the previous results of other scholars. In this survey, neither collecting
industrial feedback on the applicability of an invention (Arvanitis et al. 2008) nor ensuring
an ecosystem that is more flexible than the university for the further development of the
invention was viewed differently by the traditional and entrepreneurial scientists. These
motivations were deemed quite important, with some slight differences.
Average salaries in the Hungarian public sector (including academia) are lower than
those in Western Europe. It is surprising then that entrepreneurial researchers stated that
the desire to increase personal income from the commercialization of research results is
less important than other motivations. The results do not support those of previous stud-
ies which stress the particular role of personal income in entrepreneurial motivations
(Renault 2006; D’Este and Perkmann 2011); however, the impact of this cannot be ruled
out. Our results rather confirm opinions that suggest the use of non-monetary incentives
in academia in fostering academic entrepreneurship among scientists (Azagra-Caro et al.
2008; D’Este and Perkmann 2011). Obtaining financial resources for further research was
the second finance-driven motivation in our survey. The role of this type of motivation
has proven remarkable, since the differences between the opinions of traditional and
entrepreneurial scientists and the relationship between motivation and entrepreneurial
intention were statistically supported. We can thus conclude that the need to obtain fi-
nancial resources for further research was valued more highly by the entrepreneurial sci-
entists, who also tend to commercialize their research results. This viewpoint can be
explained by the recent changes in many countries regarding the funding of the higher
education system which influence scientists to obtain financial resources from industry,
e.g., through the commercialization of academic research (Rasmussen et al. 2006).
In the international literature, previous studies have highlighted the role of reputation as
one of the most important motivational factors in commercialization (Dietz and Bozemann
2005; Siegel et al. 2003). However, in our study, reputation-related motivations were rated
much lower than other motivational factors. Although the need to boost one’s scientific
reputation in academia does not differ between the two groups of researchers, there is a
medium positive relationship between motivation and entrepreneurial intention. On the
one hand, this result confirms other studies, which emphasize the fact that academics can
increase their scientific reputation in the industrial environment through university–indus-
try interactions (Jacob et al. 2000); on the other hand, entrepreneurial activities may not en-
hance one’s reputation in academia (Arvanitis et al. 2008), which may explain why
reputation-related motivations were ranked lower than other motivations. Summarizing the
results of the reputation-related opinions, it is only the desire to demonstrate the practical
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 9 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

relevance of research activities to family members and friends that the two groups of re-
searchers reported differently.Furthermore,thistypeofmotivation has a significant rela-
tionship with entrepreneurial intention. Although this motivation is low, according to the
respondents, those researchers who tend to commercialize their research results through a
spin-off company value this kind of motivation more highly than traditional researchers.
With regard to commercialization-driven motivations, more attention must be paid
to the need for direct control over the commercialization process. Firstly, it is not only
the differences between traditional and entrepreneurial scientists that can be observed,
but the relationship between this kind of motivation and entrepreneurial intention.
While this kind of motivation is ranked by the traditional scientists as the 6th, it is the
2nd most important motivation for entrepreneurial scientists.
Spin-off companies can increase employment by creating jobs for academics or young
researchers/students. Surprisingly, it was found that securing jobs for young researchers
was seen as more important among the respondents than securing a job for oneself
when one’s academic position is terminated. The reason for this altruism may be ex-
plained by the academics who responded to the survey; they hold secure positions at
the university and do not fear the loss of their jobs. With regard to the opinions of
traditional and entrepreneurial researchers, it can be concluded that creating employ-
ment opportunities for young researchers through spin-off creation is more important
for entrepreneurial researchers. These results confirm the findings of an Italian survey,
which explored the problem of the academic bottleneck and found that spin-off com-
panies represented a tool for hiring young researchers (Rizzo 2015).
Inourresearch,wecouldidentifyonly28scientistswhichmayhaveimpactontheresults
and should be interpreted carefully. The share of the entrepreneurial scientists is about 9 %,
which seems to be low, but other studies (Hoye and Pries 2009; Lam 2011) also found that
entrepreneurial scientists, who tend to commercialize scientific results, represents only a
small share of academics. This is a limitation not only in our study, but a general problem
in the investigations of entrepreneurial activity in higher education institutions.
Conclusions
Previous studies have focused on researchers’motivation in academic entrepreneurship, but
there is a lack of surveys that investigate the motivational differences by specific group of ac-
ademics. Our research results contribute to the need for a better understanding of motiv-
ational differences between traditional and entrepreneurial scientists. In our study, we
provided evidence that managerial experience gained at companies can affect scientists’
entrepreneurial intention. In this regard, universities should consider how institutions can
motivate scientists to gain managerial—or at least research related—experience at companies.
In most cases, higher education institutions do not tolerate researchers holding other posi-
tions at companies in addition to their current academic position; however, this stance could
be a barrier to entrepreneurial intention and hinder academic entrepreneurship in general.
Methods
We carried out a survey among academics at Hungarian higher education institutions
to investigate the motivational differences related to the commercialization of research
results through spin-off companies. We invited researchers representing the natural
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 10 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

sciences, the life sciences, engineering, and agriculture from 20 higher education insti-
tutions to participate in our survey.
Variables and measurement
Our aim is to identify motivations with a significant relationship to scientists’entrepre-
neurial intention. In our research focus, entrepreneurial intention played a significant
role. We measured the entrepreneurial intention (e.g., I plan to create a spin-off com-
pany within 1 year for the commercialization of my scientific results.) and motivational
variables with a 5-point Likert scale. We asked respondents to provide information
about their previous experience related to research and managerial activity. This experi-
ence was measured in years. Figure 3 demonstrates the relationships between entrepre-
neurial intention, motivations, and previous experience.
We assume that there are motivational differences between researchers who in-
tend to commercialize their research results through a spin-off company within
1 year and those who do not have any interest in spin-off creation. We divided the
researchers into two segments in order to test our presumption. There are two
possible methods of measuring entrepreneurial intention: applying dual scale (yes/
no) or measuring the degree of intention (5-point Likert scale). While the former
one seems to be simpler, the latter one can be answered easily in those cases when
the commercialization of scientific results through spin-off company might depend
on other circumstances as well. Thus, answering dual scales (yes/no) can cause dif-
ficulties for the respondents. For this reason, we use Likert scales in our investiga-
tion, as was suggested by Ajzen
1
also applied by other authors in recent researches
(Goethner et al. 2012; Kautonen et al. 2013).
Researchers who plan to commercialize their research results at a spin-off company
(those who marked 4–5 on the 5-point Likert scale) are among the scientists with a
positive intention towards commercialization (these are the entrepreneurial scientists),
and the others (who marked 1–3 on the 5-point Likert scale) represent a neutral or
negative opinion towards spin-off creation (they are the traditional scientists). In the
Entrepreneurial
intention
Development-driven
motivations
Experience:
research experience at a university
research experience at a company
managerial experience at a company
Finance-driven
motivations
Reputation-driven
motivations
Commercialization-driven
motivations
Motivations
Fig. 3 Relationships between entrepreneurial intention, motivations, and experience. Source:
authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 11 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

following sections, we demonstrate our results from our comparison of these two
groups of researchers.
During the international literature review and the qualitative research carried out
with 21 academics in 2014 (Huszár et al. 2014), we determined the most relevant mo-
tivational factors. This review and the in-depth interviews form the theoretical basis for
our survey. In the questionnaire, we asked the respondents to indicate the importance
of goals (motivational factors) if they decide to commercialize their research results at a
spin-off company. Table 2 summarizes the motivational factors analyzed in our survey.
In the investigation of previous experience, we took into consideration not only aca-
demic experience but also experience gained at companies as well. We also distin-
guished the research and managerial experience gained outside academia (Table 3).
Sample
The survey was carried out with an online web-based system, which allowed for the
collection of responses at low cost and in a structured way (Malhotra and Birks 2006),
while maintaining the validity of the responses (Gosling et al. 2004). The questionnaire
was tested at a technology transfer office with the technology transfer managers with
degrees in the natural and life sciences. After the internal test, we sent the question-
naire to one university. Based on the feedback and responses from the researchers, we
did not have to make any changes to the questionnaire.
Table 2 Motivational variables
Motivational factors
Development-driven motivations
M1—to collect industrial feedback on the applicability of my invention
M2—to ensure an ecosystem that is more flexible than the university for the further development of my
invention
Finance-driven motivations
M3—to increase my personal income from my entrepreneurial activities
M4—to obtain financial resources for further research
Reputation-driven motivations
M5—to increase my scientific reputation through entrepreneurship
M6—to increase my social reputation through entrepreneurship
M7—to demonstrate the practical relevance of my research to family/friends
Commercialization-driven motivations
M8—to ensure direct control over the commercialization of my invention
M9—to benefit society with my invention
Job security-driven motivations
M10—to secure jobs for young researchers at my spin-off company
M11—to secure a job if my university position is terminated
Source: authors’compilation
Table 3 Variables of experience
Experience Measurement
Research experience at a higher education institution (EXP-HEI-RES) Scale
Research experience at a company (EXP-COM-RES) Scale
Managerial experience at a company (EXP-COM-MAN) Scale
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 12 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 4 The number and share of respondents by position
Position Traditional scientists Entrepreneurial scientists Total
N%N%N%
Professor emeritus/emerita 6 2.1 1 3.6 7 2.2
Full professor 50 17.5 4 14.3 54 17.2
Associate professor 90 31.5 8 28.6 98 31.2
Assistant professor 48 16.8 5 17.9 53 16.9
Assistant lecturer 29 10.1 5 17.9 34 10.8
PhD candidate 9 3.1 1 3.6 10 3.2
PhD student 14 4.9 2 7.1 16 5.1
Senior research fellow 14 4.9 1 3.6 15 4.8
Research fellow 18 6.3 1 3.6 19 6.1
Research assistant 8 2.8 0 0.0 8 2.5
Total 286 100.0 28 100.0 314 100.0
Source: authors’compilation
Table 5 The number and share of respondents by scientific field
Scientific fields Traditional scientists Entrepreneurial scientists Total
N%N%N%
Biological sciences 39 13.3 5 17.9 44 13.7
Physical sciences 13 4.4 3 10.7 16 5.0
Dental medicine 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.3
Geography 4 1.4 0 0.0 4 1.2
Earth sciences 14 4.8 0 0.0 14 4.3
Pharmaceutical sciences 8 2.7 0 0.0 8 2.5
Informatics 35 11.9 4 14.3 39 12.1
Chemistry 30 10.2 2 7.1 32 9.9
Environmental sciences 10 3.4 1 3.6 11 3.4
Mathematics 4 1.4 0 0.0 4 1.2
Engineering 64 21.8 7 25.0 71 22.0
Agriculture 13 4.4 3 10.7 16 5.0
Theoretical medicine 38 12.9 1 3.6 39 12.1
Clinical medicine 21 7.1 2 7.1 23 7.1
Total 294 100.0 28 100.0 322 100.0
Source: authors’compilation
Table 6 Research and managerial experience
Experience (in years) Traditional
scientists
Entrepreneurial
scientists
Total
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
Research experience at a higher education institution
(EXP-HEI-RES)
19.1 11.7 19.1 12.0 19.1 11.7
Research experience at a company (EXP-COM-RES) 2.8 4.2 5.1 5.3 3.0 4.3
Managerial experience at a company (EXP-COM-MAN) 2.7 4.0 4.3 5.0 2.8 4.1
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 13 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

We collected the e-mail addresses of the researchers from the departments’websites
in order to send the questionnaire directly to those individuals. In collecting e-mail ad-
dresses, we considered two principal rules. Firstly, the department of the researchers
had to be relevant to the scientific fields mentioned above. Secondly, the position held
by the researcher had to be relevant to the research. Finally, we sent the questionnaire
directly to 7967 academics between 26 February and 30 August 2015 and received 525
responses. The survey was carried out through the EVASYS online web-based survey
system, and responses were analyzed with IBM SPSS 20.0 statistical software.
In the sample, almost half of the respondents (48.4 %) held full professor or associate
professor positions at the university, but the assistant professors also constituted a sig-
nificant share (16.9 %) (Table 4). With regard to the assistant lecturers, we can con-
clude that their share among the entrepreneurial scientists is almost double that of the
assistant lecturers among the traditional scientists. Other positions do not show re-
markable differences between the two groups of academics.
With regard to scientific fields, most of the researchers represent the biological
sciences (13.7 %), informatics (12.1 %), chemistry (9.9 %), engineering (22 %), and the
medical sciences (theoretical and clinical together 19.2 %) (Table 5). As we can see that,
differences can be observed in the case of biological sciences, physical sciences, and
agriculture, which scientific fields are overrepresented, while in the case of earth
sciences and theoretical medicine researchers represent a lower share among entrepre-
neurial scientists than among traditional scientists.
The average research experience among the researchers is 19.1 years, which does not
differ between traditional and entrepreneurial scientists. But entrepreneurial scientists
have more research and managerial experience at companies than traditional scientists
that is almost double (Table 6).
Since we grouped the researchers based on the entrepreneurial intention, we also wanted
to test whether attitudinal differences exist between the two groups. This comparison also
helps to demonstrate the important differences between the two groups of scientists. The
results also suggest that entrepreneurial scientists express more positive attitudes towards
commercialization (Table 7), which was supported by the independent samples test as well
and proved significant differences between the attitudes (Appendix 1).
Endnotes
1
Ajzen’s website: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf, downloaded:
9th of May 2016
Table 7 Attitudes towards commercialization
Attitudinal variables Traditional
scientists
Entrepreneurial
scientists
Total
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
The commercialization of scientific results through spin-off
company plays important role in my scientific field.
2.7 1.3 4.1 0.8 2.8 1.3
It is important for me to commercialize my scientific
results through spin-off company
2.8 1.3 4.3 0.7 3.0 1.3
If I had commercializable research result, I would
commercialize it through spin-off company.
3.5 1.3 4.3 0.7 3.7 1.3
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 14 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 8 Descriptive statistics of motivational variables by spin-off creation intention
Levene’s test for
equality of
variances
ttest for equality of means
FSig. tdfSig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
difference
Std. error
difference
95 % confidence interval
of the difference
Lower Upper
The commercialization of scientific results through spin-off company
plays important role in my scientific field.
Equal variances assumed 16.901 .000 −5.747 285 .000 −1.42903 .24864 −1.91844 −.93962
Equal variances not assumed −8.297 46.085 .000 −1.42903 .17223 −1.77569 −1.08237
It is important for me to commercialize my scientific results through
spin-off company
Equal variances assumed 19.550 .000 −6.208 300 .000 −1.50956 .24318 −1.98811 −1.03101
Equal variances not assumed −10.550 59.539 .000 −1.50956 .14309 −1.79582 −1.22329
If I had commercializable research result, I would commercialize it
through spin-off company.
Equal variances assumed 12.678 .000 −3.302 294 .001 −.82423 .24962 −1.31549 −.33297
Equal variances not assumed −5.270 51.453 .000 −.82423 .15641 −1.13816 −.51030
Source: authors’compilation
Appendix
Appendix 1
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 15 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 9 Descriptive statistics of motivational variables by spin-off creation intention
Traditional scientists Entrepreneurial scientists Total
Motivational variables Importance (based
on means)
NMean Std.
deviation
Importance (based
on means)
NMean Std.
deviation
Importance (based
on means)
NMean Std.
deviation
M4—to obtain financial resources for further research 1 265 4.29 0.8923 1 30 4.57 0.6789 1 353 4.32 0.8894
M8—to ensure direct control over the commercialization of
my invention
6 246 4.10 0.9948 2 29 4.52 0.6336 6 331 4.10 0.9892
M2—to ensure an ecosystem that is more flexible than the
university for the further development of my invention
2 237 4.27 0.9583 3 30 4.50 0.9738 2 316 4.31 0.9428
M1—to collect industrial feedback on the applicability of
my invention
3 245 4.20 1.0065 4 30 4.47 0.7303 4 329 4.19 0.9963
M10—to secure jobs for young researchers at my spin-off
company
7 260 4.01 1.0076 5 30 4.43 0.7739 7 348 4.03 0.9980
M3—to increase my personal income from my
entrepreneurial activities
4 267 4.20 0.8895 6 30 4.40 0.6747 3 354 4.23 0.8841
M9—to benefit society with my invention 5 265 4.15 1.0237 7 30 4.30 0.8769 5 355 4.19 1.0081
M11—to secure a job if my university position is terminated 8 253 3.72 1.2858 8 29 4.00 1.1019 8 339 3.80 1.2526
M5—to increase my scientific reputation through
entrepreneurship
10 261 3.03 1.2400 9 30 3.33 1.1842 10 351 3.08 1.2543
M7—to demonstrate the practical relevance of my research
to family/friends
11 261 2.67 1.2153 10 30 3.33 1.4700 11 352 2.77 1.2741
6—to increase my social reputation through
entrepreneurship
9 262 3.08 1.2369 11 30 3.27 1.0807 9 352 3.10 1.2407
Source: authors’compilation
Appendix 2
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 16 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 10 Independent-samples test
Levene’s test for
equality of
variances
ttest for equality of means
FSig. tdfSig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
difference
Std. error
difference
95 % confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
M1—to collect industrial feedback on the applicability of my invention Equal variances assumed 1.340 .248 −1.405 273 .161 −.26667 .18973 −.64019 .10686
Equal variances not assumed −1.801 43.778 .079 −.26667 .14803 −.56504 .03171
M8—to ensure direct control over the commercialization of my invention Equal variances assumed 1.889 .170 −2.196 273 .029 −.41562 .18927 −.78823 −.04300
Equal variances not assumed −3.109 46.191 .003 −.41562 .13367 −.68464 −.14659
M2—to ensure an ecosystem that is more flexible than the university for
the further development of my invention
Equal variances assumed .011 .918 −1.236 265 .218 −.22996 .18603 −.59625 .13633
Equal variances not assumed −1.221 36.478 .230 −.22996 .18837 −.61182 .15190
M7—to demonstrate the practical relevance of my research to family/friends Equal variances assumed 2.946 .087 −2.782 289 .006 −.66667 .23967 −1.13838 −.19495
Equal variances not assumed −2.392 33.712 .022 −.66667 .27873 −1.23329 −.10004
M5—to increase my scientific reputation through entrepreneurship Equal variances assumed .004 .952 −1.272 289 .204 −.30268 .23799 −.77109 .16572
Equal variances not assumed −1.319 36.705 .195 −.30268 .22942 −.76766 .16230
M6—to increase my social reputation through entrepreneurship Equal variances assumed 1.009 .316 −.792 290 .429 −.18651 .23557 −.65015 .27713
Equal variances not assumed −.882 38.258 .384 −.18651 .21158 −.61474 .24172
M9—to benefit society with my invention Equal variances assumed .391 .532 −.747 293 .456 −.14528 .19458 −.52823 .23767
Equal variances not assumed −.845 38.538 .404 −.14528 .17201 −.49334 .20277
M11—to secure a job if my university position is terminated Equal variances assumed 6.632 .011 −1.112 280 .267 −.27668 .24871 −.76626 .21290
Equal variances not assumed −1.258 37.321 .216 −.27668 .22002 −.72234 .16898
Appendix 3
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 17 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 10 Independent-samples test (Continued)
M10—to secure jobs for young researchers at my spin-off company Equal variances assumed .181 .671 −2.217 288 .027 −.42179 .19024 −.79622 −.04737
Equal variances not assumed −2.730 41.279 .009 −.42179 .15449 −.73373 −.10986
M3—to increase my personal income from my entrepreneurial activities Equal variances assumed .544 .461 −1.202 295 .230 −.20150 .16767 −.53149 .12849
Equal variances not assumed −1.496 41.264 .142 −.20150 .13467 −.47342 .07042
M4—to obtain financial resources for further research Equal variances assumed .986 .322 −1.663 293 .097 −.27987 .16827 −.61104 .05129
Equal variances not assumed −2.065 41.278 .045 −.27987 .13553 −.55353 −.00622
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 18 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Appendix 4
Table 11 Correlations
Entrepreneurial
intention (Pearson
correlation)
Entrepreneurial
intention (Spearman
correlation)
M1—to collect industrial feedback on the applicability
of my invention
Correlation .100 .031
Sig. (2-tailed) .098 .610
N275 275
M8—to ensure direct control over the
commercialization of my invention
Correlation .120* .057
Sig. (2-tailed) .047 .345
N275 275
M2—to ensure an ecosystem that is more flexible
than the university for the further development
of my invention
Correlation .041 .024
Sig. (2-tailed) .502 .693
N267 267
M7—to demonstrate the practical relevance of my
research to family/friends
Correlation .240** .230**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N291 291
M5—to increase my scientific reputation through
entrepreneurship
Correlation .187** .198**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001
N291 291
M6—to increase my social reputation through
entrepreneurship
Correlation .108 .104
Sig. (2-tailed) .066 .077
N292 292
M9—to benefit society with my invention Correlation .043 .006
Sig. (2-tailed) .467 .915
N295 295
M11—to secure a job if my university position is
terminated
Correlation .058 .012
Sig. (2-tailed) .330 .839
N282 282
M10—to secure jobs for young researchers at my
spin-off company
Correlation .166** .151**
Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .010
N290 290
M3—to increase my personal income from my
entrepreneurial activities
Correlation .089 .043
Sig. (2-tailed) .128 .465
N297 297
M4—to obtain financial resources for further research Correlation .133* .109
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .062
N295 295
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 19 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Table 12 Independent-samples test
Independent-samples test
Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances
ttest for equality of means
FSig. tdfSig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
difference
Std. error
difference
95 % confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Research
experience at
a higher
education
institution
Equal
variances
assumed
.000 .985 −.016 314 .988 −.03621 2.31726 −4.59554 4.52312
Equal
variances not
assumed
−.015 32.172 .988 −.03621 2.37047 −4.86369 4.79127
Research
experience at
a company
Equal
variances
assumed
3.524 .061 −2.906 320 .004 −2.42156 .83326 −4.06091 −.78221
Equal
variances not
assumed
−2.383 31.505 .023 −2.42156 1.01606 −4.49247 −.35065
Managerial
experience at
a company
Equal
variances
assumed
2.671 .103 −2.076 319 .039 −1.64939 .79448 −3.21246 −.08631
Equal
variances not
assumed
−1.723 31.623 .095 −1.64939 .95739 −3.60044 .30166
Source: authors’compilation
Table 13 Correlations
. Research
experiences
at university
Research
experiences
at company
Managerial
experiences
at company
Entrepreneurial
intention
Research experience at a higher
education institution
Pearson
Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N502
Research experience at a company Pearson
correlation
.118* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .010
N473 493
Managerial experience at a company Pearson
Correlation
.136** .716** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .000
N466 484 486
Entrepreneurial intention Pearson
Correlation
.139** .093 .158** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .069 .002
N375 383 380 393
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Source: authors’compilation
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 20 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contribution
SH participated in formalising research questions, reviewing the literature, conducting the research, carrying out the
statistical analysis and making conclusions. SzP participated in formalising research questions, checking stat analysis
and making conclusions. NB participated in formalising research questions, reviewing the literature and making
conclusions. All authors read and approved the final manuscipt.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the European Union and the European Social Fund through project (grant no.:
TÁMOP-4.1.1.C-12/1/KONV-2012-0004).
Author details
1
Knowledge Management Research Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, HU, Hungary.
2
Institute of Business Studies,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Szeged, Szeged, HU, Hungary.
3
Department of Health
Economics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, HU, Hungary.
Received: 1 January 2016 Accepted: 7 June 2016
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned bahavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their
engagament in knowledge transfer: what single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2-3), 50–65.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University–industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: what
university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865–1883.
Azagra-Caro, J. M., Aznar-Marqez, J., & Blanco, J. M. (2008). Interactive vs. non-interactive knowledge production by
faculty members. Applied Economics, 40(10), 1289–1297.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2006). Entreprenerial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for
understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.
Blair, D., & Hitchens, D. (1998). Campus companies: UK and Ireland. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Buzás, N. (2005). From technology transfer to knowledge transfer: an institutional transition. In C. G. Alvstam & E.
Schamp (Eds.), Linking industries across the world (pp. 109–123). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2006). “Mode 3”: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems
perspective. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks
and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 1–25). Westport:
Praeger.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge,
innovation and the environment relate to each other?—a proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of
sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development,
1(1), 41–69.
D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and
individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer., 36(3), 316–339.
Dietz, J. S., & Bozemann, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and
technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva,
21,1–21.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages.
Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.
Goethner, M., Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Cantner, U. (2012). Scientists’transition to academic entrepreneurship:
economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 628–641.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis
of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104.
Hellman, T. (2005). The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap (NBERWorking Paper No. 11460, Cambridge,
Mass).
Hoye, K., & Pries, F. (2009). ‘Repeat commercializers’,the‘habitual entrepreneurs’of university–industry technology
transfer. Technovation, 29(10), 682–689.
Huszár, S., Prónay, S., & Buzás, N. (2014). Researchers’motivation and expectation in connection with patenting and
technology transfer offices in Hungary (Academic Proceedings, 2014 University-Industry Interaction Conference:
Challenges and Solutions for Fostering Entrepreneurial Universities and Collaborative Innovation, Barcelona, Spain,
pp. 272–285).
Jacob, M., Hellstrom, T., Adler, N., & Norrgren, F. (2000). From sponsorship to partnership inacademy–industry relations.
R&D Management, 30(3), 255–262.
Kautonen, T., Van Gelderenb, M., & Tornikoskic, E. T. (2013). Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour: a test of the theory of
planned behaviour. Applied Economics, 45(6), 697–707.
Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4), 315–330.
Küttim, M., Kallaste, M., Venesaar, U., & Kiis, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship education at university level and students’
entrepreneurial intentions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110(24), 658–668.
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 21 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Lam, A. (2007). Knowledge networks and careers: academic scientists in industry–university links. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(6), 993–1016.
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’,‘ribbon’or ‘puzzle’?
Research Policy,40(10), 1354–1368.
Laredo, P., & Mustar, P. (2001). Research and innovation policies in the new global economy. An international comparative
analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lee, Y. S. (1998). University-industry collaboration on technology transfer: views from the Ivory Tower. Policy Studies
Journal, 26(1), 69–84.
Liefner, I., & Schiller, D. (2008). Academic capabilities in developing countries—a conceptual framework with empirical
illustrations from Thailand. Research Policy, 37(2), 276–293.
Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2006). Marketing research—an applied approach. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Mansfield, E., & Lee, J. Y. (1996). The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial
R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: how entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive
economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499–1508.
Nelson, R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–472.
Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: uncovering the grey zone. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.
Pawlowski, K. (2009). The ‘Fourth Generation University’as a creator of the local and regional development. Higher
Education in Europe, 1,51–64.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A.,
Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P, Lissoni, F., Salter, A., Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and
commercialization: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: lessons learned from quantitative and
qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K (Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics). New York: Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
Prónay, S., & Buzás, N. (2015a). The evolution of marketing influence in the innovation process: toward a new science-
to-business marketing model in quadruple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2015(6), 494–504.
Prónay, S., & Buzás, N. (2015b). The evolution of marketing influence in the innovation process: toward a new science-
to-business marketing model in quadruple helix. Journal of The Knowledge Economy., 6(3), 494–504.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge.
Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.
Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.
Rizzo, U. (2015). Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 40(2), 198–226.
Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. Cheltaehnahm: Edward Elgar.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practicies on the relative
productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
Stevens, J. M., & Bagby, J. W. (1999). Intellectual property transfer from universities to business: requisite for sustained
competitive advantage? International Journal of Technology Management, 18(5-8), 688–704.
Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25,19–46.
Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university. Managing the university in transition.Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Yurtkorua, E. S., Kuşcub, Z. K., & Doğanayc, A. (2014). Exploring the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention on Turkish
university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 841–850.
Submit your manuscript to a
journal and benefi t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the fi eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Huszár et al. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2016) 5:25 Page 22 of 22
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com