From Chalkboard to Boardroom: Unveiling the Role of Entrepreneurship in Bolstering Academic Achievement among Professors

Abstract

Entrepreneurial activity by academics is a critical component of university technology transfer. However, academics at the professorial level often express concerns that engaging in entrepreneurial activity might harm their research performance due to the perceived diversion of focus from core academic pursuits. To better understand the interplay of professorial entrepreneurial activity and individual scientific performance, we examined a sample of 789 US and European professors with an affinity for entrepreneurship. We found that professors working at highly reputable universities exhibited higher research performance. However, in a striking departure from widespread beliefs, this positive association is significantly amplified by entrepreneurial activity. This finding highlights an interesting dimension of academic entrepreneurship that warrants further exploration.

Full text

1
From Chalkboard to Boardroom: Unveiling the Role of Entrepreneurship in Bolstering Academic
Achievement among Professors1
Andreas Kuckertz / Maximilian Scheu
University of Hohenheim
Entrepreneurship Research Group
Wollgrasweg 49
70599 Stuttgart
Germany
Corresponding author: andreas.kuckertz@uni-hohenheim.de; ORCID 0000-0002-1733-0706
Acknowledgments
This research results from the Research Area "Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Finance (INEF)"
at the University of Hohenheim's Faculty of Business, Economics, and Social Sciences. The authors
are indebted to Donatus Knopp for his assistance during the data collection phase of this study.
1 This is a preprint version. For the final version refer to “From chalkboard to boardroom: Unveiling the role of
entrepreneurship in bolstering academic achievement among professors”. A. Kuckertz, & M. Scheu. Journal of Business
Research, 175(March): 114570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114570

2
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

3
From Chalkboard to Boardroom: Unveiling the Role of Entrepreneurship in Bolstering Academic
Achievement among Professors
Abstract
Entrepreneurial activity by academics is a critical component of university technology transfer.
However, academics at the professorial level often express concerns that engaging in
entrepreneurial activity might harm their research performance due to the perceived diversion
of focus from core academic pursuits. To better understand the interplay of professorial
entrepreneurial activity and individual scientific performance, we examined a sample of 789 US
and European professors with an affinity for entrepreneurship. We found that professors working
at highly reputable universities exhibited higher research performance. However, in a striking
departure from widespread beliefs, this positive association is significantly amplified by
entrepreneurial activity. This finding highlights an interesting dimension of academic
entrepreneurship that warrants further exploration.
Keywords
Technology transfer, third mission, science entrepreneurs, academic spinoffs, academic
entrepreneurship, reputation
JEL Codes
L26, I23

4
1. Introduction
In early 2020, two professors drastically changed the direction of their medical research
company. The firm was BioNTech, which used its messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology,
previously intended to support the advancement of immunotherapy for cancer, to develop a
vaccine that could mitigate the spread and risks of severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Wang et al., 2021b). The professors were Uğur Şahin, founder and
chief executive officer, and Özlem Türeci, founder and chief medical officer, both affiliated with
the University of Mainz in Germany. This successful entrepreneurial decision substantially
impacted how society worldwide coped with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Polack et
al., 2020) and subsequently placed both professors among the 100 wealthiest Germans (Forbes,
2022).
BioNTech is a telling and, admittedly, an extreme example of the upward potential of university
and research-based technology transfer through entrepreneurial activity. Researchers have long
been interested in academic spinoffs (Etzkowitz, 1998; Mcqueen & Wallmark, 1982), their impact
(Shane, 2004a; Walter, Auer & Ritter, 2006; Mustar, Wright & Clarysee, 2008), and their genesis
(Fini, Grimaldi & Sobrero, 2009; Ndonzuau, Pirnay & Surlemont, 2002; Fini et al., 2017). In
addition, policymakers have attempted to foster academic spinoffs through appropriate
programs (Shane, 2004b; Mowery & Ziedonis, 2002; Mowery & Sampat, 2004).
Surprisingly, this research stream often treats all academics alike, measuring, for instance, the
success of university technology transfer as the number of startups generated by any individual
affiliated with a university. However, individuals are diverse and differently motivated (Goethner

5
et al., 2012) and can thus play various roles in academic entrepreneurship (Clarysse et al., 2011;
Krabel & Mueller, 2009). Furthermore, although cases of student startups and doctoral students
turning their research into businesses should not be neglected in terms of university technology
transfer, the knowledge, networks, and patents that professors accumulate over their careers
make them an interesting subpopulation of academics with the potential for impactful
entrepreneurial activity (Guerrero & Urbano, 2014).
In many higher education systems, universities build on the unity of research and teaching (Scott,
2006; Meyer, 2012). However, the introduction of the third mission beyond these two classic
objectives, namely, the knowledge transfer to society and the creation of a positive impact on a
university's surroundings (Laredo, 2007; Abreu et al., 2016; Wagner et al., 2021), in which
professorial entrepreneurial activity could be a central component, has often been questioned.
Moreover, if individual academics already experience tension between research pressure and
teaching load, expecting them to embrace additional tasks, such as establishing research-based,
innovative startups, will likely trigger skepticism. Similar to the unity of research and teaching,
the unity of transfer and research comes with cross-fertilization potential (Van Looy et al., 2004;
Bojko, Knapinska & Tomczyńska, 2021). However, academics do not necessarily acknowledge this
potential and fear that their involvement in transfer activities could negatively impact their
research productivity and, ultimately, their academic standing. Against this skeptical background,
this article aims to answer the following research question.
Research Question. How is entrepreneurial activity at the professorial level related to individual
scientific performance?

6
The analysis of 789 professors associated with the innovative startup scene employing Poisson
QML regressions suggests that such worries are not necessarily justified. In fact, our results
suggest that what many consider problematic is actually beneficial. More specifically, the analysis
revealed that professors' individual scientific performance and entrepreneurial activity were
synergetic, albeit this association seems to depend on the immediate institutional setting in
which individual professors operated.
Our findings make three potential contributions to the discourse on university technology
transfer. First, establishing a positive association between professorial entrepreneurial activity
and research reputation enhances our theoretical understanding of the unity of research and
university technology transfer. Second, as this association depends on the institutional
environment of the surrounding higher education institution (HEI), the analysis suggests that the
synergies between research and transfer are not straightforward and are not entirely within the
influence sphere of individual professors. Finally, the results support the design of appropriate
university technology transfer structures to assist individual professors in maximizing the
benefits of their research results.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
2.1 Institutional logics and academic entrepreneurship
Institutional theory (North, 1990; Friedland & Alford, 1991) describes how social structures
shape human interaction and behavior on different levels of the environment encompassing
individuals (Scott, 2008). Different logics (Thornton et al., 2012) characterize such institutions,

7
generally understood as “patterns of beliefs, practices, values, assumptions, and rules that
determine what is meaningful and legitimate in a given field” (Su et al., 2017: 509).
Accordingly, institutional theory became an established lens to investigate entrepreneurship
(Bruton et al., 2010; Su et al., 2017) as it aids in capturing the complexity of the phenomenon
(Thornton et al., 2012). Applications range from institutions close to the individual level (e.g.,
family (Bika, 2012), community (Hoppy & Stephan, 2012), or profession (Marquis & Lounsbury,
2007) to macro-level institutions (e.g., religion (Audretch et al., 2013), state (Liñán et al., 2011),
or the market (Ansari & Phillips, 2011). Likewise, institutions and their respective logics help
explain the circumstances under which academia operates (Angermuller, 2017) and also the
interplay of academia and entrepreneurship, i.e., academic entrepreneurship (Abreu &
Grinevich, 2013; Klingbeil et al., 2019). Consequently, studies of academic entrepreneurship
often rely on institutional theory (Fini & Toschi, 2016).
In the context of academic entrepreneurship at the professorial level, several institutional logics
result from professors' immediate and overarching environments that might differ between the
levels of analysis (Klingbeil et al., 2019). For instance, on the individual level, entrepreneurial
intention predicts academic entrepreneurial activity (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010). Similarly, on the
organizational level, a HEI’s attitude toward research commercialization affects individual
entrepreneurial intention (Klingbeil et al., 2019). However, considering professors, their
individual entrepreneurial intentions may be subservient to their interest in reaching high
scientific performance. Hence, institutional logics, such as the norms of their profession
(Thornton et al., 2012), may conflict with academic entrepreneurial activity.

8
The regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutional mechanisms (Scott, 2008) vary
across organizations, regions, and countries (Doh & Guay, 2006; Bund & Gerhard, 2021;
Greenwood et al., 2014). Consider, for instance, the institutional environment in Germany versus
the US. In Germany, where regulative institutions like the labor law limit professors in their
potential entrepreneurial activities, institutional logic strengthens the norm of a professor
engaging solely in academic merit. Although policymakers embrace research commercialization
(Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020) and aim to reduce obstacles (Von Proff et al., 2012), the
acceptance and change of perception of academic individuals and organizations (Kraatz & Block,
2008) proceed slowly and differs in its adoption of new institutional logics (Perkmann et al.,
2013). On the contrary, the US is an example of a nation with high success levels in research (THE,
2020) and entrepreneurship (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2020). In particular, Ivy League
institutions have gained a reputation for their exceptional academic achievements and for
simultaneously producing some of the most successful ventures and entrepreneurs. For instance,
Stanford University has played a pivotal role in shaping Silicon Valley into a leading global hub of
entrepreneurship (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2021). Hence, the question arises of which institutional
logics impacting professors affect academic entrepreneurship and how these institutional logics
relate to scientific performance.
2.2 Institutional environment and the association between professorial entrepreneurial activity
and scientific performance
Due to the intricate and multifaceted nature of contexts, practitioners (Feld, 2020) and scholars
(Spigel, 2017) have increasingly embraced ecosystem approaches. Ecosystem approaches offer

9
comprehensive perspectives on complex institutional settings with multiple types of actors. For
example, knowledge ecosystems refer to technology hotspots in which local universities and
public research organizations are pivotal in driving technological innovation (Clarysse et al.,
2014). Furthermore, the proximity of various research institutes, both geographically and
institutionally, promotes innovation spillover (Agrawal & Cockburn, 2002) and is positively
correlated with the performance of innovative local ventures (Prokop, 2022) and their innovation
output (Phelps et al., 2012). Therefore, research institutes are essential components of
entrepreneurial ecosystems (Spigel, 2017).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are complex networks of entrepreneurial agents and their
interactions in a specific regional environment (Stam, 2015) that foster the growth of new
ventures (Audretsch et al., 2019) and benefit their larger environments (Kuckertz, 2019).
Research institutions, particularly universities, are essential contributors to the development and
sustainability of entrepreneurial ecosystems by providing critical resources, such as human
capital, knowledge and research, and academic spinoffs (Miller & Acs, 2017). By leveraging these
resources, universities can create a dynamic and supportive ecosystem that empowers startups
to prosper and expand (Hayter et al., 2018; Prokop, 2021).
However, there is a noteworthy difference between entrepreneurial ecosystems and knowledge
ecosystems. Knowledge ecosystems can exist independently of the surrounding business
ecosystem. In other words, the effects of the adjacent entrepreneurial ecosystem on the
knowledge system may not be as pronounced as the other way around (Clarysse et al., 2014).
Historically, the primary missions of HEIs have been research and teaching, with academic

10
spinoffs and knowledge transfer being a relatively recent phenomenon, triggered in the US by
the Bayh-Dole Act, which encouraged entrepreneurial thinking and activity among academics and
universities (Shane, 2004b; Grimaldi et al., 2011).
Although scholars have debated the role of the Bayh-Dole Act in fostering patent registration and
licensing by US universities (e.g., Mowery & Ziedonis, 2002; Mowery & Sampat, 2004), other
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have implemented
similar mechanisms in their institutional systems (Mowery & Sampat, 2004). Following the US
example, many European countries have changed professors' privileges to facilitate ownership
rights of inventions (Van Looy et al., 2004) and turn universities into entrepreneurial ecosystems.
HEIs are unique institutional environments that can foster entrepreneurial activity in the
surrounding entrepreneurial ecosystems or function as independent university entrepreneurial
ecosystems within research institutes (Prokop, 2021).
The notion of a university entrepreneurial ecosystem has gained prominence recently (Hayter et
al., 2018). This notion refers to the institutional structure surrounding research institutes and
considers the importance of interaction with their social environment to facilitate
entrepreneurial activities (Prokop, 2021, 2022). The university entrepreneurial ecosystem
framework encompasses a variety of players engaged in academic entrepreneurship (Prokop,
2021), including students, junior academics, researchers, scientists, technology transfer offices,
and non-academic actors (Krabel & Mueller, 2009; Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008; Hsu et al., 2007;
Mindruta, 2013; Clarysse et al., 2011). Furthermore, knowledge ecosystems show that
collaborating with central actors positively influences the innovation output of ventures (Clarysse

11
et al., 2014). Unsurprisingly, high academic performers, known as star scientists (Fuller &
Rothaermel, 2012), are significant players in turning knowledge ecosystems into university
entrepreneurial ecosystems that promote entrepreneurial activity (Krabel & Mueller, 2009). In
addition to star scientists, an active publishing environment is positively associated with
entrepreneurial activity (Haeussler & Colyvas, 2011).
However, some academic sub-groups fall short of research investigation despite academic
individuals' central role in fostering the entrepreneurial ecosystem around universities (Clarysse
et al., 2011). Particularly professors have received scant research attention (Kenney & Goe,
2004), although they influence academic ecosystems through research, teaching, and transfer
(Reymert & Thune, 2023). Therefore, they encounter and interact with many relevant groups in
university entrepreneurial ecosystems. Moreover, the three main tasks of professors (i.e.,
research, teaching, and transfer) are also critical determinants of HEIs' excellence, as reflected in
global university rankings, such as the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking (THE, 2023). Ranking
positions indicate the prestige of universities (Bowman & Bastedo, 2011), attracting talent
(Dearden et al., 2019) and external partnerships, which, in turn, increase resource endowments
(Uslu, 2020).
Professors thus shape the institutional environments of HEIs. Entrepreneurial professors who
excel at research and transfer can be role models for developing institutional systems conducive
to entrepreneurship and academic performance. Such professors, whose entrepreneurial
activities do not harm but benefit their academic performance, can promote systems that foster
entrepreneurship and research in a complementary fashion. Regardless of the ongoing debate

12
on whether individual or collective efforts cause institutional change (Aldrich, 2011), professors'
entrepreneurial activity may cause a significant shift in institutional systems, turning
entrepreneurial professors into institutional entrepreneurship agents and facilitating academic
institutional change.
2.3 Professorial entrepreneurial activity and academic performance
The reputation of HEIs significantly influences how stakeholders perceive them (Johnes, 2018).
University rankings, such as the THE World University Rankings (THE, 2023), play a pivotal role in
determining the rank and subsequent reputation of HEIs. These rankings possess substantial
reputational effects that can impact the organizational development and strategies of HEIs
(Hazelkorn, 2008). The significance of these rankings is so great that the potential for
manipulation to secure better positions is a genuine threat (Pollard et al., 2013). Notably,
university rankings shape the public image of HEIs among external stakeholders, including
students (Bowman & Bastedo, 2009) and external partners, which may, for example, enhance
resource availability (Bowman & Bastedo, 2011). Higher-ranked institutions thus benefit from
superior resources, attracting talented individuals and adopting more selective hiring practices,
ultimately elevating their overall performance (Bowman & Bastedo, 2011). However, it is
essential to recognize that many university rankings primarily focus on research and academic
achievements (Dill, 2009), overlooking the heterogeneous missions of universities. Nevertheless,
this focus attracts accomplished academics to leading HEIs, as the combination of resources,
talent, and high-performing scholars endows these institutions with a competitive advantage,
leading to the exceptional academic excellence of their institutes and researchers (Lancho-

13
Barrantes & Cantu-Ortiz, 2021). Consequently, the professors associated with these highly-
ranked universities tend to exhibit outstanding academic performance (Kenney & Goe, 2004).
Interestingly, some of these professors manage to excel in both research and entrepreneurship.
Such professors tend to operate in areas of high complexity and uncertainty. First, pursuing an
academic career requires substantial time (Fudickar, Hottenrott & Lawson, 2018) and arduous
cognitive efforts and could thus be considered one of the most challenging career paths available.
Second, prior research has indicated the difficulty of creating new ventures requiring substantial
individual commitment (Lee et al., 2011). One scarce resource needed for both tasks is the
available time. Thus, there is a question of how individuals can master a successful academic
career while simultaneously being entrepreneurially active. Pursuing both paths simultaneously
results in less available time for each path, as individuals have to split their time budgets across
two entirely different domains. Consequently, it does not seem easy to excel when focusing on
two paths at once (Mosey & Wright, 2007). Favoring one path over the other mitigates this
difficulty and may be advantageous (Göktepe-Hulten & Mahagaonkar, 2009).
However, it may be beneficial to consider the bigger picture instead of focusing on a single career
path. For example, evidence from Poland suggests that research productivity supports academic
entrepreneurship (Bojko, Knapinska & Tomczyńska, 2021). The apparent disadvantage of a
divided focus seems to benefit research as much, for example, when the divide entails fruitful
activities for research such as teaching or consulting (Mitchell & Rebne, 1995). Thus, professors
who participate in both knowledge creation and knowledge accessibility through their

14
entrepreneurial activities can still excel at research and earn a reputation in academia for several
reasons.
First, professorial entrepreneurial activity potentially increases resource accessibility. Some
research fields require extraordinarily high set-up investments for further research. Such funding
is rare in publicly funded research institutes and universities, which makes scientific progress
dependent on external funding (Hossinger et al., 2021). Professorial entrepreneurial activity
enables ventures to commercialize knowledge to support promising future research projects
(Lehmann, Meoli & Paleari, 2021) while equipping the research team with the needed resources
and preserving the independence of future research directions.
Second, professorial entrepreneurial activity facilitates interesting research and likely increases
practical relevance while remaining rigorous. A large portion of academic reputation is a
consequence of rigorous scientific publishing. To publish high-quality studies, research must be
rigorous and contribute novel insights to the field. However, while increasing rigor is appreciated
theoretically, practitioners frequently criticize the escalating rigor–relevance gap between
practice and academia (Wiklund, Wright & Zahra, 2019). If research suffers from theoretical
inflation and relevant practical contributions become rare, then the value of this particular
research model can be questioned. Professors' entrepreneurial activities can address the need
to balance rigor and relevance. As entrepreneurs applying their knowledge, professors act as
embedded researchers in their fields. In addition, diverse activities enhance serendipity.
Serendipity is a powerful factor in arriving at meaningful insights from research (Yaqub, 2018)
and may lead to groundbreaking discoveries (Roberts, 1989). Furthermore, just as

15
entrepreneurial activity expands the opportunity space in terms of additional entrepreneurial
activity (Ronstadt, 1988), it also provides opportunities for more and better research.
Third, professorial entrepreneurial activity resonates with academics' need for achievement,
which is usually relatively high (Fini, Grimaldi & Sobrero, 2009; Hayter, 2011). Lam (2011) found
the desire for intrinsic satisfaction and positive impacts on career and reputation advancements
to be motivators for academic entrepreneurs in commercializing their knowledge. Indeed,
intangible benefits are the primary drivers of academic engagement with entrepreneurship,
while financial benefits play a minor role (Hossinger et al., 2021; Fini et al., 2009; Goethner et al.,
2012). By definition, professorial entrepreneurial activities originate from academic
entrepreneurial motivation (Guerrero & Urbano, 2014; Lam, 2011). Such activities constantly
challenge academics to learn and apply different skill sets and further develop themselves
(Hayter, 2011). Moreover, the opportunity to commercialize knowledge through
entrepreneurship (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2007) contributes to society by potentially catering to
the third mission of universities. Given that individual performance has been shown to follow a
power-law distribution (O'Boyler & Aguinis, 2012), successful professors in academia are likely to
be successful as entrepreneurs and vice versa.
Regarding the immediate institutional context surrounding professors, it becomes evident that
highly ranked HEIs, such as Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
have gained recognition for their technology transfer activities and university spinoffs (Shah &
Pahnke, 2014; Hsu, 2007). In addition, these universities have effectively established vibrant
entrepreneurial ecosystems, developing significant partnerships with global entrepreneurial

16
enterprises (Etzkowitz, 2022) while attracting exceptional academics and achieving remarkable
academic performance (Kenney & Goe, 2004). In general, top-ranked HEIs and individuals
operating in these institutional frameworks successfully harmonize the three missions of
teaching, research, and knowledge transfer (Etzkowitz, 1998). Moreover, leading HEIs tend to
possess extensive networks of industry collaborators and engage in collaborations with
innovative companies (Etzkowitz, 2022; Prokop, 2022), facilitating the transition from academic
research to new ventures and surpassing universities that lack equitable engagement with
external partners (de la Torre et al., 2019).
Furthermore, top-ranked HEIs attract talented students from across the globe (Hou et al., 2012).
The combination of talent and an institutional environment that nurtures entrepreneurial
activities increases the likelihood of professors engaging in entrepreneurial endeavors by
supporting their students' early-stage ideas. Such endeavors have resulted in noteworthy
ventures originating from top HEIs' campuses (Prokop, 2022). Furthermore, these institutional
environments foster a supportive culture that highlights achievements, thus creating role models
who exemplify academic and industry success, which ultimately facilitates the integration of
academic entrepreneurship into academics' objectives. Consequently, top HEIs mitigate the role
conflict between entrepreneurship and academic pursuits (Wang et al., 2021a) by cultivating an
entrepreneurial identity (Jain et al., 2009) among academic scientists.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all HEIs approach the abovementioned aspects in
the same manner. The diverse institutional environments in which professors operate exert
varying effects on academic performance and entrepreneurial engagement. HEIs exhibit

17
substantial heterogeneity and follow divergent trajectories (Kitagawa et al., 2016) in their efforts
to foster cultures that support academic entrepreneurial activities (Sánchez-Barrioluengo et al.,
2019). Against this background, it becomes significant to explore further the relationship
between professorial entrepreneurship activity and academic performance, as well as to
investigate how institutional environments affect this relationship. The discussion so far indicates
that professorial entrepreneurial activity is likely to positively impact academic performance,
particularly when professors are embedded in an institutional setting characterized by logics that
value entrepreneurial efforts. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Individual professorial entrepreneurial activity amplifies the positive association
between university reputation and individual academic performance.
The research framework in Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical arguments and presents the main
mechanisms impacting the relationship between professorial entrepreneurial activity and
academic reputation, depending on the institutional setting.
Figure 1 here
3. Method
3.1 Data
To construct a sample of professors relevant to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, we relied on
Crunchbase. This database is a premium resource that describes the global entrepreneurial
ecosystem in all aspects (Dalle et al., 2017) and thus finds application in various entrepreneurship
studies (den Besten, 2020), either as an exclusive data source (e.g., Żbikowski & Antosiuk, 2021;

18
Kuckertz, 2021; Lee & Geum, 2023) or in combination with other data sources (e.g., Gauger et
al., 2021). First, the research team queried Crunchbase for individuals from Europe and the US
whose primary job title contained the term "professor." We focused on individuals from
European countries and the US because these two regions are marked by vigorous
entrepreneurial activity. This procedure identified 2,430 individuals.
In the next step, we reduced the sample size by defining the 500,000 CB rank provided in
Crunchbase (out of more than a million) as the cut-off criterion. The CB rank measures individuals'
engagement in the entrepreneurial ecosystem based on numerous data sources (Stephan, 2019)
and can help identify the most active individuals, that is, professors, who potentially impact the
startup ecosystem. This step resulted in 789 professors, of whom 190 originated from Europe
and 599 from the US.
To complement the information from Crunchbase, we collected data from Scopus to describe the
academic activity of the sample beyond entrepreneurial activity. Finally, we included information
from Startup Genome (2022) to provide a snapshot of the entrepreneurial ecosystems
surrounding the identified professors' HEIs. In addition, the data included results from the most
recent World University Rankings (THE, 2023) to gain insight into the prestige of these HEIs.
Appendix 1 provides an overview of the databases used to construct the dataset.
3.2 Measures
Based on the Scopus database (for eligibility, see Harzing & Alakangas, 2016), the dependent
variable employed as a proxy for individual scientific performance was the h-index of an

19
individual. Hirsch defined h in the following way (2005: 16569): "A scientist has index h if h of his
or her Np papers have at least h citations each and the other (Np – h) papers have ≤h citations
each." This index represents past accomplishments and has the predictive capacity to forecast
future scholarly achievement (Hirsch, 2007), making it a robust indicator of academic stature and
performance (Ding & Kandonga, 2020).
The first independent variable, entrepreneur, was a binary indicator showing whether an
individual had founded a startup (0 = no; 1 = yes) based on data from Crunchbase (for eligibility,
see Ferrati & Muffatto, 2020). The second independent variable, university reputation, was
represented by the standing of a professor's HEI (Bowman & Bastedo, 2011) in the World
University Rankings, according to information sourced from THE (2023).
Control variables were used to ensure the robustness of the analysis. One such variable was
gender (0 = male; 1 = female), as recorded in Crunchbase and controlled for by the professors'
names. We employed this variable to account for potential gender disparities in research
performance, as suggested by previous studies (van Den Besselaar and Sandström, 2016).
Furthermore, to capture the effects arising from career advancement, we divided the generic
title of professor into the following career stages: assistant professor, associate professor, full
professor, adjunct professor, and professor emeritus (0 = no; 1 = yes) (Abramo et al., 2016). In
addition, using Scopus data, we considered the academic field in which an individual professor
was active (0 = other fields; 1 = natural science) and academic age, defined as the difference in
years between 2022 and an individual's first publication recorded in Scopus (Nane et al., 2017).
Finally, to account for the effects of the institutional environment, we used 21 country control

20
dummies2 to capture the broader institutional environment on the national level (Davidsson &
Wiklund, 2001) and the categories of top ecosystem, emerging ecosystem, and unranked
ecosystem (0 = no; 1 = yes) as provided by Startup Genome (2022) to include the regional
institutional environment (Bosma & Sternberg. 2014) around the HEIs.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive results
The analysis used RStudio (Posit team, 2023), supplemented with common packages, such as
ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016) and sjPlot (Lüdecke, 2021). Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics.
Professors impacting the entrepreneurial ecosystem were predominantly male (80% male vs.
20% female professors) and typically had a natural science background (80%). Furthermore, the
majority hailed from the US (76% vs. 24% from Europe).
Table 1 here
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the geographical dispersion of professors engaged in entrepreneurship
activities. The geocoded data painted a striking picture, revealing that entrepreneurially active
professors in the US were primarily an East Coast or West Coast phenomenon. In Europe, the
epicenter was in the UK, with London asserting a dominant presence.
Figures 2 and 3 here
2 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of
America.

21
Overall, 25% of the individuals in the sample were involved in startups as founders. In addition,
the sample was academically experienced, as indicated by an average academic age of 25.99
years (SD = 12.32), an average h-index indicating high individual scientific performance of 32.13
(SD = 30.93), and the presence of 63.6 full professors compared to other career levels.
Furthermore, the professors were affiliated with reputed institutions, as indicated by an average
THE rank of 121.99 (SD = 271.20). In addition, almost two-thirds of the sample were located in a
top ecosystem according to the Startup Genome classification (64.36%, SD = .48). Table 2
illustrates the various professorial archetypes within the sample, differentiated by their
respective institutional reputation and engagement in entrepreneurial activities.
Table 2 here
4.2 Hypothesis testing
We ran several regression analyses to test this study's hypothesis. The dependent variable of
interest, as illustrated in Figure 4, was an overdispersed, non-zero-inflated count variable. Thus,
the analysis used Poisson quasi-maximum likelihood (QML) regression, known for its capacity to
yield robust results in such scenarios (Cameron & Trivedi, 2010; for an application, Ebersberger
& Kuckertz, 2021). Table 3 presents the results. Notably, the variance inflation factors never
surpassed the traditionally accepted thresholds (Neter et al. 1996), precluding multicollinearity
concerns.
Figure 4 and Table 3 here

22
Model 1 considered only the control variables. We found that the more seasoned professors,
those working in the natural sciences, and those holding the title of full professor tended to
exhibit superior individual scientific performance (academic age (logged): b = .794; p ≤ .001;
academic field: b = .939; p ≤ .001; full professor: b = .368; p ≤ .001). In addition, belonging to a
top-tier ecosystem was positively associated with elevated individual scientific performance in
the control model (top ecosystem: b = .220, p ≤ .01).
Models 2 and 3 integrated the factors of professorial involvement with a startup as a founder
and the reputation of an HEI into the equation. Entrepreneurial activity consistently showed a
positive association with individual scientific performance (Model 2, entrepreneur: b = .346; p ≤
.001; Model 3, entrepreneur: b = .302; p ≤ .001). Furthermore, once the institutional ambiance
shaped by the university's reputation was considered, the direct effect of belonging to a top
ecosystem dissolved, revealing a significant correlation between university reputation and
individual scientific performance (university reputation: b = -.101; p ≤ .001). Notably, the negative
coefficient actually signaled a positive association, a quirk arising from how the university
reputation variable was scaled: lower values signify a higher reputation (e.g., position 5 in the
THE ranking), while higher values indicate the opposite (e.g., position 500 in the THE ranking).
Hypothesis 1 posited that an individual professor's entrepreneurial activity would act as a force
multiplier, strengthening the positive association between a university's reputation and
individual academic performance. Model 4 tested this premise and found significant supporting
evidence. Although the coefficients of the independent variables remained essentially

23
unchanged (entrepreneur: b = .486; p ≤ .001, university reputation: b = -.081; p ≤ .001), their
interaction was significant (b = -.064; p ≤ .05).
The nature of this interaction is depicted in Figure 5. University reputation is invariably correlated
with higher levels of individual scientific performance. However, a professor's entrepreneurial
activity noticeably amplified this direct association. The difference between professors directly
involved in startups and those who were not was particularly pronounced for professors affiliated
with top-ranking universities.
Figure 5 here
4.3 Robustness checks
We conducted a series of robustness checks to ensure the resilience of the results, as reported
in Appendix 2. First, we performed a routine robustness check for Poisson QML regressions.
Regressing the logged h-index on the same explanatory variables using an OLS regression led to
the same conclusions, with all independent variables and their interactions remaining statistically
significant and the direction of the coefficients remaining consistent. In the second robustness
check, the h-index in the Poisson QML regression was substituted with the absolute number of
citations, an alternative yardstick of scientific performance. These results echoed the principal
analysis, further cementing the robustness of the findings.

24
5. Discussion
When recalling the beginning of his entrepreneurial journey in a social media post, BioNTech's
cofounder Uğur Şahin (2022) aptly summarized researchers' perception of the interplay between
research and transfer:
"On one hand, we knew that our vision of developing novel therapies, proving their efficacy,
and reaching patients could not be achieved merely through research in an academic setting.
As academicians however we feared that starting a company and the associated tasks could
distract from what is at the heart of any innovation - and what we love most: focussing on
science."
Figure 6 illustrates that his concerns did not materialize, and our empirical results support the
anecdotal evidence depicted there on a larger scale. Individual scientific performance is naturally
associated with the immediate institutional environment, that is, with the university
entrepreneurial ecosystems of the HEIs where the professors work. Entrepreneurial activity
amplifies this relationship.
Figure 6 here
5.1 Theoretical implications
In the past, universities' first and second missions, namely, research and teaching, constituted
core professorial responsibilities (Meyer, 2012). However, with the emergence of other tasks,
such as the increased relevance and implementation of the third mission (Laredo, 2007; Wagner
et al., 2021), the scope of the professorship has come under discussion (van den Brink &
Benschop, 2011). Scholars have wondered whether task diversity results in tasks negatively
affecting one another (Reymert & Thune, 2023). However, prior research indicates a tendency

25
toward positive rather than negative associations among the different professorial tasks (Bojko,
Knapinska & Tomczyńska, 2021). This study's results support and complement these findings by
considering academic entrepreneurship at the professorial level and the impact of the immediate
institutional environment.
Today, professorial responsibilities exceed research and teaching. Indeed, one could argue that
it is a contradiction that dividing time between multiple activities should produce synergies
between entrepreneurial activities and research performance. For instance, van den Brink and
Benschop (2011) argued that most professors do not meet the academic excellence criteria in all
aspects, stating that it is impossible to be a "sheep with five legs" (p. 512). Thus, in most instances,
some tasks dominate others. Arguably, professors with high academic performance are
individuals with an extreme need for achievement (Fini, Grimaldi & Sobrero, 2009) and constitute
a unique subpopulation of academia. Already excelling at research, they are likely to seek
excellence in other areas of their profession. In the case of entrepreneurial professors, one such
area involves the transition from scientific findings to commercialization through entrepreneurial
activity. The fact that academic entrepreneurs are rarely financially motivated (Hossinger et al.,
2021; Fini et al., 2009; Goethner et al., 2012) implies that they will remain interested in academic
research despite their entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, achieving high academic
performance and being entrepreneurially active are not necessarily contradictory states; instead,
they seem to follow high-achieving individuals' power-law distribution (O'Boyler & Aguinis,
2012).

26
However, our research revealed that the entrepreneurial activity of professors was not solely
determined by their individual characteristics but also involved the institutional environments in
which they operate. The professors included in our study were based in universities in the
Western hemisphere, although, as is well documented in the literature, institutional
environments can vary significantly across countries and regions (Busenitz et al., 2000; Doh &
Guay, 2006). For instance, there are significant differences in academic entrepreneurship
between US and European high-tech clusters (Wright, 2007). Our analysis underscored the
importance of the institutional context (Prokop, 2021, 2022) for professorial entrepreneurial
activity. More specifically, we found that it was not the broader institutional environments
surrounding the HEIs responsible for the positive effect of entrepreneurial activity on research
performance but the university entrepreneurial ecosystems within the HEIs where the professors
operated.
The findings indicate that the top HEIs tend to employ individuals who excel in academic
performance and entrepreneurship. However, not all universities located in the same
entrepreneurial ecosystem as the top HEIs exhibit similar features suggesting that regional
institutions, even at the city level, cannot fully account for these discovered effects. Although
most top HEIs are indeed US universities, regional institutional environments can only partially
explain the complexity of academic entrepreneurship, for example, by emphasizing the macro
context related to universities' patents and licensing (Mowery & Sampat, 2004) that favors US
HEIs. Yet, these regional institutional effects do not explain the differences between the HEIs
within the US and even within the same entrepreneurial ecosystem. Moreover, a simplistic view
of the regional institutional effects on the academic institutional system (Angermuller, 2017) may

27
not fully capture the complexity of academic entrepreneurship and its connections with the HEIs
that foster it. Therefore, the link between professorial entrepreneurial activity and academic
performance is less a function of regional institutional environments or the surrounding
entrepreneurial ecosystems and more a result of the institutional environments of HEIs and their
university entrepreneurial ecosystems that support high-performing individuals in both research
and entrepreneurship.
Thus, our findings of the correspondence between top-ranked HEIs and their professors' high
performance, both academically and entrepreneurially, are in line with Klingbeil et al. (2019),
who argue that the institutional commercialization logic, that is, the regulative, normative, and
cultural-cognitive attitudes towards research commercialization, on the organizational-level play
a decisive role in fostering academic entrepreneurship and attracting the kinds of individuals who
(Kristof, 1996) tend to fit such institutional environments. Of course, a professor must master
academic excellence to be hired by one of the leading universities. However, it remains
remarkable that professors who do so may choose not only such institutions for their academic
reputation but also their institutional environment supporting entrepreneurial activity.
5.2 Implications for university technology transfer
According to our results, most of the studied professors were affiliated with US universities and
had natural or computer science backgrounds. One could argue that Crunchbase, the source of
our data, is biased toward US universities and that the resource-intensive nature of these fields
often involves both research and application opportunities. Indeed, researchers have found that
most university spinoffs emerge from these scientific fields (Bonardo et al., 2010). Nevertheless,

28
the institutional aspect must not be overlooked. Our analysis showed that a university's
institutional environment impacts professorial entrepreneurial activity and academic
performance. Despite European universities' increased interest in the third mission over the past
few decades (Laredo, 2007), institutional gaps still hinder the commercialization of research and
the incentivization of professors toward entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, it is essential to
recognize that academic entrepreneurs are seldom motivated by financial incentives (Hossinger
et al., 2021; Lam, 2011; Goethner et al., 2012) and that the widespread notion that professorial
entrepreneurial activity may harm research performance is unfounded. Consequently, university
leadership and policymakers should create more supportive institutional environments within
universities that could strengthen university entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Although the positive effects of professorial entrepreneurial activity extended beyond top US
universities, most entrepreneurial universities were private US universities. Therefore, it is
imperative for universities and policymakers, particularly in Europe, to modify laws and
regulations to facilitate professors' participation in research-driven startups and encourage them
to act entrepreneurially. Promoting professors' privileges has been a step in the right direction
(Cunningham et al., 2019). However, restrictive regulations, such as the German labor law,
impede entrepreneurial professors and contradict their mandate to boost technology transfer
from universities (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). To promote professorial potential in
academic entrepreneurship, universities should provide comprehensive platforms through which
successful entrepreneurial professors could interact with less entrepreneurial academics and
share their experiences.

29
Moreover, highlighting role models, such as BioNTech's Uğur Şahin, can motivate peers to engage
in entrepreneurial activities and facilitate the transition between universities and startups.
Ultimately, universities must invest in their entrepreneurial ecosystems. Although some
universities may not be able to compete with top-ranked HEIs in all aspects, incrementally
enhancing university entrepreneurial ecosystems and supporting professorial entrepreneurial
activity are likely to support other parameters, such as research performance.
5.3 Limitations and future research
Although thorough, this study inevitably contains certain limitations, which also reveal intriguing
avenues for future research. Our analysis, which was based on a quantitative approach,
necessarily depended on the availability and application of the selected variables, making it
difficult to achieve a deeper understanding of the precise mechanisms underpinning the studied
phenomenon. Therefore, it would be desirable to attain more profound insights into professors'
work styles that lead to extraordinary outputs, as this study could not concretely illuminate how
entrepreneurial professors excel in both academia and entrepreneurship. However, professors
who engage in research and entrepreneurship appear to have a high sense of achievement, an
aspect that future research could explore. Similarly, while this study has categorized professors’
academic fields into broad categories, such as sciences versus non-sciences, we acknowledge the
potential for a more nuanced perspective. Future studies may further enhance the understanding
of the impact of academic disciplines by utilizing a more detailed categorization.
Second, the data framed entrepreneurial activity on the basis of being a founder of a company.
However, the realm of professorial entrepreneurial activity can expand beyond this scope,

30
incorporating elements such as overseeing a university incubator, advising budding
entrepreneurs, and even investing in academic spinoffs. Thus, future studies should examine
academic entrepreneurship at the professorial echelon. One feasible approach could be to
formulate a taxonomy delineating the sequence of activities that professors engage in before
venturing into entrepreneurship. Such studies could pave the way for a theoretical development
trajectory outlining the evolution from a purely research-oriented professor to one who
embodies the entrepreneurial spirit.
Finally, the results underscore the importance of the immediate institutional environment.
However, we still need to address the underlying factors driving this observation. Therefore, it is
necessary to understand and investigate the university entrepreneurial ecosystems in more
depth. Although the vignettes introduced in Table 2 shall sharpen the idea of the immediate
institutional environment around the professors, our data does not allow us to distinguish further
and compare the university entrepreneurial ecosystems. For example, does this phenomenon
depend on the HEI as a breeding ground for professors' entrepreneurial activities or the
department structure around the professors? Or is it the successful endeavors of professors that
enhance the immediate institutional environment, thus enabling a successful blend of academic
research and entrepreneurship? The subtle interplay between institutional structure and
individual action deserves further investigation. Moreover, future studies may compare
mechanisms supporting entrepreneurial activity at the professorial level at different universities
and the professors' departments to enhance our understanding of the immediate institutional
environment around academic entrepreneurship.

31
6. Conclusion
Our analysis lends credence to the proposition that entrepreneurial endeavors and individual
academic performance need not be considered divergent or antithetical pursuits. Instead, they
appear to exist in a state of constructive synergy. Consequently, those entrusted with facilitating
technology transfer within universities may find it beneficial to emphasize this reality during their
discussions with professorial academic personnel. Entrepreneurial activity has the potential to
drive a profound elevation in the research capabilities of professors, with multiple positive
implications for both the individuals concerned and their affiliated institutions. If accurately
interpreted and appropriately leveraged, this revelation could herald a new era of integrated
academic and entrepreneurial excellence.
References
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2016). The combined effects of age and seniority on research performance
of full professors. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 301-319. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv037
Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on
entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005
Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship in the creative arts. Environment and Planning C:
Government and policy, 32(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11144r
Abreu, M., Demirel, P., Grinevich, V., & Karataş-Özkan, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial practices in research-intensive
and teaching-led universities. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 695-717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
016-9754-5
Agrawal, A. K., & Cockburn, I. M. (2002). University research, industrial R&D, and the anchor tenant hypothesis.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w9212
Aldrich, H. E. (2011). Heroes, villains, and fools: Institutional entrepreneurship, NOT institutional
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/2157-5665.1024
Angermuller, J. (2017). Academic careers and the valuation of academics. A discursive perspective on status
categories and academic salaries in France as compared to the U.S., Germany and Great Britain. Higher
Education, 73(6), 963–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0117-1
Ansari, S., & Phillips, N. (2011). Text me! New consumer practices and change in organizational fields. Organization
Science, 22(6), 1579-1599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0595

32
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management
Studies, 44(7), 1242-1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00722.x
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Tamvada, J. P. (2013). Religion, social class, and entrepreneurial choice. Journal of
Business Venturing, 28(6), 774-789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.002
Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems:
economic, technological, and societal impacts. The Journal of technology transfer, 44, 313-325.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4
Audretsch, D. B., & Fiedler, A. (2023). Does the entrepreneurial state crowd out entrepreneurship? Small Business
Economics, 60(2), 573-589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00604-x
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustard, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of
context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual
level. Organization science, 19(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0295
Berger, E. S. C., & Kuckertz, A. (2016). Female entrepreneurship in startup ecosystems wordwide. Journal of Business
Research, 69(11): 5163-5168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.098
Bika, Z. (2012). Entrepreneurial sons, patriarchy and the Colonels' experiment in Thessaly, rural
Greece. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(3-4), 235-257.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.670915
Bojko, M. M., Knapińska, A., & Tomczyńska, A. (2021). Academic entrepreneurship and the research productivity in
Poland. Industry and Innovation, 28(4), 486-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1753020
Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2010). The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms.
Journal of Technology Transfer,35, 141–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9109-3
Bosma, N., & Sternberg, R. (2014). Entrepreneurship as an urban event? Empirical evidence from European
cities. Regional studies, 48(6), 1016-1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.904041
Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in
reputation scores. Higher education, 61, 431-444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1
Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and
the impact of US News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50, 415-436.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0295
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H. L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and
where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421-440.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x
Bund, E., & Gerhard, U. (2021). The role of institutional and structural differences for city-specific arrangements of
urban migration regimes. Urban Planning, 6(2), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i2.3767
Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial
phenomena. Academy of Management journal, 43(5), 994-1003. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556423
Cameron, A.C., & Trivedi, P.K. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata (Vol. 2). College Station, TX: Stata press.
Clark, B. R. (1995). Places of inquiry research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational
support on academic entrepreneurship. Research policy, 40(8), 1084-1093.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.010

33
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between
knowledge and business ecosystems. Research policy, 43(7), 1164-1176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.014
Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on
potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284
Cunningham, J. A., Lehmann, E. E., Menter, M., & Seitz, N. (2019). The impact of university focused technology
transfer policies on regional innovation and entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5),
1451-1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09733-0
Dalle, J.-M., Den Besten, M., & Menon, C. (2017). Using Crunchbase for economic and managerial research, OECD
Science. Technology and Industry Working Papers, 8. https://doi.org/10.1787/6c418d60-en.
Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and
suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, 25(4), 81-100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870102500406
den Besten, M. L. (2020). Crunchbase research: Monitoring entrepreneurship research in the age of big
data. Available at SSRN 3724395.
Ding, J., Liu, C., & Kandonga, G. A. (2020). Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring
the research performance of authors. Scientometrics, 122, 1303-1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
020-03364-1
de la Torre, E. M., Rossi, F., & Sagarra, M. (2019). Who benefits from HEIs engagement? An analysis of priority
stakeholders and activity profiles of HEIs in the United Kingdom. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2163-
2182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1479847
Dearden, J. A., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. L. (2019). Strategic manipulation of university rankings, the prestige effect,
and student university choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 691-707.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719831258
Dill, D. D. (2009). Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university rankings. University rankings,
diversity, and the new landscape of higher education, 97-116.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087908164_008
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the
United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management studies, 43(1), 47-
73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00582.x
Ebersberger, B., & Kuckertz, A. (2021). Hop to it! The impact of organization type on innovation response time to the
COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Business Research, 124, 126-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.051
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry
linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6
Etzkowitz, H.; Zhou, C. (2021). Licensing life: The evolution of Stanford university's technology transfer practice.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, 120764.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120764
Etzkowitz, H. (2022). Entrepreneurial university icon: Stanford and Silicon Valley as innovation and natural
ecosystem. Industry and Higher Education, 36(4), 361-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-
6
Feld, B. (2020). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. John Wiley & Sons.
Ferrati, F., & Muffatto, M. (2020). Using Crunchbase for research in Entrepreneurship: data content and structure.
In Proc. Eur. Conf. Res. Methods Bus. Manag. Stud (Vol. 2020, pp. 342-351).

34
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of
Italian founders incentives. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 380–402.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-008-9093-z
Fini, R., Fu, K., Mathisen, M. T., Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2017). Institutional determinants of university spinoff
quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study. Small Business Economics, 48(2), 361-
391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9779-9
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Meoli, A. (2020). The effectiveness of university regulations to foster science-based
entrepreneurship. Research policy, 49(10), 104048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104048
Forbes (2022). The world's billionaires list. Forbes. Retrieved Februar 10, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/real-
time-billionaires/#48615e6d3d78
Fudickar, R., Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2018). What's the price of academic consulting? Effects of public and
private sector consulting on academic research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(4), 699–722.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty007
Gauger, F., Strych, J. O., & Pfnür, A. (2021). Linking real estate data with entrepreneurial ecosystems: Coworking
spaces, funding and founding activity of startups. Data in Brief, 37, 107185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.107185
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2020). GEM Consortium Retrieved 10.02.2022, from
https://www.gemconsortium.org/reports/latest-global-report
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.12.002
Graham, H. D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The Rise of American research universities: Elites and challenges in the postwar
era. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Whetten, D. (2014). Rethinking institutions and organizations. Journal of
management studies, 51(7), 1206-1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12070
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: reassessing academic
entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045– 1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014). Academics' startup intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective
of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 57-74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9526-4
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-
disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent
academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340–352.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9196-1
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O'Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship
ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43,
1039-1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5
Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher
Education Policy, 21, 193-215. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.1
Herrera, F., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2018). Entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem's drivers: The role of
higher education organizations. Entrepreneurial, innovative and sustainable ecosystems: Best practices and
implications for quality of life, 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71014-3_6

35
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amerika, 102(46), 16569-16572.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Hirsch, J.E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of Amerika, 104(49), 19193-19198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104
Hodgson, G. M. (2007). Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. Organization studies, 28(1), 95-116.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607067832
Hossinger, S., Block, J., Chen, X., & Werner, A. (2021). Venture creation patterns in academic entrepreneurship: the
role of founder motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(6) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-
09904-y
Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent
entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and startup success. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 24(9-10), 917-945. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.742326
Hou, A. Y. C., Morse, R., & Shao, Y. J. E. (2012). Is there a gap between students' preference and university presidents'
concern over college ranking indicators?: A case study of "College Navigator in Taiwan". Higher
education, 64, 767-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9524-5
Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from
MIT. Research Policy, 36(5), 768-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.001
Iorio, R., Labory, S., & Rentocchini, F. (2017). The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of
knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists. Research Policy, 46(2), 497-509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.12.003
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of
university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research policy, 38(6), 922-935.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007
Johnes, J. (2018). University rankings: What do they really show? Scientometrics, 115(1), 585-606.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2666-1
Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison
of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research policy, 33(5), 691-
707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.11.001
Kinzelbach, K., Saliba, I., & Janika Spannagel (2021) Global data on the freedom indispensable for scientific research:
towards a reconciliation of academic reputation and academic freedom, The International Journal of Human
Rights 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1998000
Kitagawa, F., Sánchez Barrioluengo, M., & Uyarra, E. (2016). Third mission as institutional strategies: Between
isomorphic forces and heterogeneous pathways. Science and Public Policy, 43(6), 736-750.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.11.001
Klingbeil, C., Semrau, T., Ebers, M., & Wilhelm, H. (2019). Logics, leaders, lab coats: a multi-level study on how
institutional logics are linked to entrepreneurial intentions in academia. Journal of Management
Studies, 56(5), 929-965. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12416
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The Sage handbook of
organizational institutionalism, 840, 243-275.
Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of
Max Planck Society scientists. Research policy, 38(6), 947-956.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.005
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and
implications. Personnel psychology, 49(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

36
Kuckertz, A. (2019). Let's take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business Venturing
Insights, 11, e00124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00124
Kuckertz, A. (2021). Standing up against crisis-induced entrepreneurial uncertainty: Fewer teams, more habitual
entrepreneurs. International Small Business Journal, 39(3), 191–
201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242621997782
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: "Gold', "ribbon' or
"puzzle'? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002
Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., & Cantu-Ortiz, F. J. (2021). Quantifying the publication preferences of leading research
universities. Scientometrics, 126(3), 2269-2310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03790-1
Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university
activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169
Lee, L., Wong, P. K., Foo, M. D., & Leung, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions: The influence of organizational and
individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 124–136.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.003
Lee, Y. S. (1996). 'Technology transfer' and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry
collaboration. Research policy, 25(6), 843-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00857-8
Lee, Y., & Geum, Y. (2023). Identifying patterns of mergers and acquisitions in startup: An empirical analysis using
Crunchbase data. IEEE Access 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3270623
Lehmann, E. E., Meoli, M., & Paleari, S. (2021). Innovation, entrepreneurship and the academic context. Industry and
Innovation, 28(3), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2021.1904843
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Startup intentions of
university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 23(3-4), 187-215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620903233929
Lüdecke, D. (2021). _sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science_. R package version 2.8.9, <URL:
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot>.
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community
banking. Academy of Management journal, 50(4), 799-820. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279172
Mcqueen, D. H., & Wallmark, J. T. (1982). Spinoff companies from chalmers-university-of-technology. Technovation,
1, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(82)90010-4
Meyer, L. H. (2012). Negotiating academic values, professorial responsibilities and expectations for accountability in
today's university. Higher Education Quarterly, 66(2), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2273.2012.00516.x
Miller, D. J., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: the University of Chicago. Small Business
Economics, 49, 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9868-4
Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach. Strategic
management journal, 34(6), 644-665. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2036
Mitchell, J. E., & Rebne, D. S. (1995). Nonlinear effects of teaching and consulting on academic research productivity.
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 29(1), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(95)98606-V
Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based
academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 909–935.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00203.x
Mowery, D.C.; Ziedonis, A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy,
31, 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00116-0

37
Mowery, D.C.; Sampat, B.N.(2004). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model
for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1-2), 115-127.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-004-4361-z
Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spinoff firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe.
Science and Public Policy, 35, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X282862
Nane, G. F., Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2017). Predicting the age of researchers using bibliometric data. Journal of
Informetrics, 11(3), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.002
Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spinoff creation. Technovation, 22(5),
281-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00019-0
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied Linear Statistical Models (4th ed),
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Neves, S., & Brito, C. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship intentions: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Management Development, 39(5), 645-704. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2019-0451
North, D.C. (1990): An introduction to institutions and institutional change. In: Douglass C. North (Hg.): Institutions,
Institutional Change and Economic Performance. (pp. 3-10) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678.003
O'Boyler, E., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance.
Personell Psychology, 65, 79-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’este, P., ... & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic
engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research
policy, 42(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research
agenda. Journal of management, 38(4), 1115-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640
Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spinoffs. Small Business Economics,
21(4), 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026167105153
Polack, F.P.; Thomas, S.J.; Kitchin, N.; Absalon, J.; Gurtman, A.; Lockhart, S. et al. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the
BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine 383, 2603-2615.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345
Pollard, E., Williams, M., Williams, J., Bertram, C., Buzzeo, J., Drever, E., ... & Coutinho, S. (2013). How should we
measure higher education? A fundamental review of the performance indicators.
Posit team (2023). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. URL
http://www.posit.co/.
Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical
test. Technovation, 30(5-6), 332-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.02.002
Prokop, D. (2021). University entrepreneurial ecosystems and spinoff companies: Configurations, developments and
outcomes. Technovation, 107, 102286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102286
Prokop, D. (2022). The composition of university entrepreneurial ecosystems and academic entrepreneurship: A UK
study. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 19(06), 2250020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102286
Reymert, I., & Thune, T. (2023). Task complementarity in academic work: a study of the relationship between
research, education and third mission tasks among university professors. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 48(1), 336-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09916-8
Robinson, J. A., & Acemoglu, D. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London: Profile
Crown Business.

38
Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-
9026(88)90028-6
Roberts, R. (1989). Serendipity: Accidental discoveries in science. Wiley Publishers.
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The journal of higher
education, 77(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778917
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage.
Şahin, U. (2022). A new home for scientists. [Post]. LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6941735436205617152/
Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Uyarra, E., & Kitagawa, F. (2019). Understanding the evolution of the entrepreneurial
university. The case of English Higher Education institutions. Higher Education Quarterly, 73(4), 469-495.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12230
Shah, S. K., & Pahnke, E. C. (2014). Parting the ivory curtain: Understanding how universities support a diverse set of
startups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 780-792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9336-0
Shane, S.A. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S.A. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university
patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), pp. 127-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00114-3
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship theory and
practice, 41(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European planning
studies, 23(9), 1759-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
Startup Genome (2022). The Global Startup Ecosystem Report GSER 2022. Accessed online (April, 9, 2023) at
https://startupgenome.com/.
Stephan, D. (2019). What Is Crunchbase Rank and Trend Score. Crunchbase. Retrieved February 17, 2021, from
https://about.crunchbase.com/blog/crunchbase-rank-trend-score/
Su, J., Zhai, Q., & Karlsson, T. (2017). Beyond red tape and fools: Institutional theory in entrepreneurship research,
1992–2014. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4), 505-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/etp.12218
Tiba, S., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2021). Sustainability startups and where to find them: Investigating
the share of sustainability startups across entrepreneurial ecosystems and the causal drivers of
differences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306, 127054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127054
THE (2020). World University Rankings 2021. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 10.02.2022, from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2021/reputation-
ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
THE (2023). World University Rankings 2023. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 04.05.2023, from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/world-ranking
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture,
structure and process. OUP Oxford.
Uslu, B. (2020). A path for ranking success: what does the expanded indicator-set of international university rankings
suggest? Higher Education, 80(5), 949-972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00527-0
Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Fichter, K. (2021). University-linked programmes for sustainable
entrepreneurship and regional development: how and with what impact? Small Business Economics, 56(3),
1141-1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00280-4

39
Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on
university spinoff performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 541–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005
Wang, M., Soetanto, D., Cai, J., & Munir, H. (2021a). Scientist or Entrepreneur? Identity centrality, university
entrepreneurial mission, and academic entrepreneurial intention. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09845-6
Wang, Z., Schmidt, F., Weisblum, Y., Muecksch, F., Barnes, C. O., Finkin, S., ... & Nussenzweig, M. C. (2021b). mRNA
vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants. Nature, 592(7855), 616-622.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03324-6
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship-Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Wiklund, J., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. A. (2019).Conquering Relevance: Entrepreneurship Research's Grand Challenge.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718807478
Wright, M. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.
van den Besselaar, P., & Sandström, U. (2016). Gender differences in research performance and its impact on
careers: a longitudinal case study. Scientometrics, 106, 143-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1775-
3
Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with
five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411414293
Van Looy, B.; Ranga, M.; Callaert, J.; Debackere, K.; Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific
performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy,33(3),
425-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.004
Von Proff, S., Buenstorf, G., & Hummel, M. (2012). University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: what role
did the professors' privilege play? Industry and Innovation, 19(1), 23-44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127054
Yaqub, O. (2018). Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 47(1), 169-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007
Żbikowski, K., & Antosiuk, P. (2021). A machine learning, bias-free approach for predicting business success using
Crunchbase data. Information Processing & Management, 58(4), 102555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102555

40
Table 1. Descriptive statistics
Mean
SD
Gender (0 male; 1 = female)
.200
.399
Academic field (0 = other; 1 = natural science)
.800
.401
Assistant professor (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.164
.370
Associate professor (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.148
.356
Full professor (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.636
.481
Adjunct professor (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.043
.203
Professor emeritus (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.009
.094
Academic age
25.990
12.320
Entrepreneur (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.250
.433
No entrepreneurial ecosystem (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.191
.394
Emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.166
.372
Top entrepreneurial ecosystem (0 = no; 1 = yes)
.6436
.479
University reputation
121.990
271.197
Individual scientific performance
32.130
30.930
n = 789.

41
Table 2. Vignettes of professors and the higher education institutions (HEI) in which they work (anonymized)
HEI with a high reputation
HEI with a middling reputation
HEI with a low reputation
Exemplary professor
engaging in
entrepreneurial activity
This professor works at one of the most
renowned universities in the US or
Europe, the UK, or Switzerland and
exhibits high academic achievement
with an h-index of
over 100, having
published more than 500 scientific
articles. In addition, this professor
transfers
scientific findings to
technology companies and is a person
of public interest, which makes him a
respected and well-known contact in
the startup realm. The professor's
entrepreneurial activity focuses on
technology-driven ventures motivated
by research and science.
This professor is a full professor in
material science and a cofounder and
Chief Technology Officer of a startup
focused on new materials. His
research field is quite prominent at
the HEI in which he works. He
publishes his research fin
dings in
academic journals and books and
holds several patents, giving him an
h-index well above 50. This professor
successfully transfers scientific
knowledge and discoveries to the
economy and thus positively impacts
society. In the media and press, he is
a popular example of unifying all
three university missions.
This business professor works at a state
university and runs a consulting company that
turns academic findings into accessible
knowledge for industry customers. He has a
comparably low h-index
(below 20) and
prioritizes practitioner-oriented research over
theoretical advancements in leading scientific
journals. In addition, he supports the
entrepreneurial ecosystem at his university
and fosters connections with the emerging
entrepreneurial ecos
ystem around the
university.
Exemplary professor
neglecting
entrepreneurial activity
This professor works for a top-30
university and excels at research with
an above-average h-index of 75–100,
depending on the research field. In
addition to working as a full professor,
she fulfills diverse roles in society and
the entrepreneurial ecosystem around
the university, such as being a
consultant for university spinoffs,
incubators, and startups. Beyond
academia, the professor is a much-
decorated public figure on several
committees. In addition, she is a
spokesperson for sustainability issues,
leveraging her academic knowledge
and network.
This full professor has an h-index of
around 50 because of publishing in
his field for 20 years. The HEI he
works at is highly
reputable in a
specific scientific field and ranks
decently on average. The professor
manages a demanding workload that
includes research, teaching,
administrative responsibilities, and
professional commitments to
research and education. Therefore,
he doe
s not actively engage in
entrepreneurial activity but still
contributes to the entrepreneurial
ecosystem in and around the HEI; for
example, by supporting university
incubation programs and university
spinoffs.
The HEI for which this professor works is a
k
nowledge ecosystem detached from the
entrepreneurial ecosystem. This associate
professor of environmental science works at a
state university in the US or Europe. She
focuses on her academic career and aims to
become a full professor within the following
y
ears. Therefore, she does not engage in
entrepreneurial activity. However, her
research has led to
consulting public
foundations and NGOs
. In addition, she
advises some startups and communities in the
surrounding ecosystem by sharing academic
insights on crucial topics.

42
Table 3. Determinants of individual scientific performance (Poisson quasi-maximum likelihood
regressions)
Model 1 –
Controls only
Model 2 – Direct
effect –
entrepreneur
Model 3 – Direct
effect –
entrepreneur and
university
reputation
Model 4 –
Interaction effect
b (SE)
b (SE)
b (SE)
b (SE)
Intercept
-.641 (.292)*
-.530 (.280) Ϯ
.430 (.317)
.350 (.318)
Control variables
Gender
-.056 (.072)
-.033 (.069)
.009 (.072)
.009 (.072)
Academic field
.939 (.093)***
.860 (.089)***
.873 (.099)***
.864 (.097)***
Associate professor
.129 (.120)
.063 (.115)
.109 (.120)
.118 (.119)
Full professor
.368 (.107)***
.327 (.103)**
.428 (.105)***
.419 (.104)***
Adjunct professor
-.453 (.201)*
-.486 (.192)*
-.296 (.191)
-.296 (.190)
Professor emeritus
-.449 (.346)
-.369 (.331)
-.557 (.439)
-.591 (.437)
Academic age (logged)
.794 (.073)***
.777 (.071)***
.674 (.076)***
.682 (.076)***
Emerging ecosystem
.100 (.098)
.032 (.094)*
.023 (.099)
.036 (.099)
Top ecosystem
.220 (.076)**
.153 (.073)***
-.051 (.082)
-.052 (.082)
Country controls
YES
YES
YES
YES
Independent variables
Entrepreneur
.346 (.053)***
.302 (.056)***
.486 (.107)***
University reputation
-.101 (.017)***
-.081 (.020)***
Interaction
Entrepreneur X
University reputation
-.064 (.032)*
McFadden Pseudo R2
.441
.472
.504
.507
n = 789. ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05, Ϯp ≤ .1 Professorial level relative to assistant professor level. Ecosystem
relative to no ecosystem. Twenty country controls relative to Germany as the largest European economy were
included.

43
Figure 1. Research framework
Institutional Logics
•Patterns of beliefs, practices, values, assumptions, and rules towards
entrepreneurship and academia
•Levels: Nation or region, entrepreneurial ecosystem, higher education institution
Professorial
entrepreneurial
activity
Academic
performance
Mechanisms
•Increased resources
•More relevant research
•Enhanced serendipity
•Need for achievement
Figure 2. Geographical location of professors as entrepreneurs (the US). Geocoded data from
Crunchbase, visualized using Kahle and Wickham (2013). Map: Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0

44
Figure 3. Geographical location of professors as entrepreneurs (Europe). Geocoded data from
Crunchbase, visualized using Kahle and Wickham (2013). Map: Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0
Figure 4. Density plot of the h-index for professors in the sample (Gaussian kernel SD = 1)
0.00
0.01
0.02
050 100 150 20
h-index
Density

45
Figure 5. Predicted values (marginal effects) of individual scientific performance
Figure 6. Academic publications of BioNTech SE's founder pre and post starting the venture. Data:
Scopus Publications Uğur Şahin. Mean difference 2009–2022 vs. 1990–2008: 14.383 (p < .001)

46
Appendix 1. Databases utilized to construct the dataset
Database
Rationale
Crunchbase
Crunchbase is a premium resource describing the global entrepreneurial ecosystem
in all aspects (Dalle et al., 2017) and is suitable for academic purposes (Ferrati &
Muffatto, 2020). Researchers utilized Crunchbase data in various entrepreneurship
studies (den Besten, 2020), either as an exclusive source of data (e.g., Żbikowski &
Antosiuk, 2021; Lee & Geum, 2023) or in combination with other databases (e.g.,
Gauger et al., 2021).
Scopus
The Scopus database extensively captures academic performance and identification
data in the form of academic authors' citations, publications, and institutional
affiliation (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016).
Times Higher Education
THE is an established ranking regularly reporting on the reputation of HEIs (Bowman
& Bastedo, 2011) and was already applied in entrepreneurship research (e.g.,
Herrera et al., 2018).
Startup Genome
The Startup Genome Ranking provides empirical evidence on entrepreneurial
ecosystems. The method is fully transparent and comprehensively documented.
As a result, Startup Genome is regarded as a reliable indicator for assessing
entrepreneurial ecosystem activity at the regional and city
level while also
providing valuable insights into the institutional framework within the context of
entrepreneurship (e.g., Audretsch & Fiedler, 2023; Tiba et al., 2021; Berger &
Kuckertz, 2016)

47
Appendix 2. Robustness checks
Ordinary least square regression on
logged dependent variable
Poisson quasi-maximum likelihood
regression on the absolute number
of citations
b (SE)
b (SE)
Intercept
-.116 (.311)
4.477 (.709)***
Control variables
Gender
-.033 (.076)
-.043 (.153)
Academic field
.785 (.081)***
1.318 (.239)***
Associate professor
-.011 (.109)
.635 (.308)*
Full professor
.154 (.095)
1.070 (.279)***
Adjunct professor
-.773 (.153)***
.124 (.465)
Professor emeritus
-.769 (.349)*
-1.250 (1.755)
Academic age (logged)
.833 (.071)***
.892 (.160)***
Emerging ecosystem
-.044 (.106)
.210 (.225)
Top ecosystem
-.095 (.088)
.081 (.189)
Country controls
YES
YES
Independent variables
Entrepreneur
.318 (.078)***
1.002 (.209)***
University reputation
-.068 (.029)*
-.151 (.046)**
Interaction
Entrepreneur X university reputation
-.001 (.000)*
-.164 (.068)*
Adjusted R2 or McFadden Pseudo R2
where appropriate
.461
.463
n = 789. ***p ≤ .001, **p ≤ .01, *p ≤ .05, Ϯ p ≤ .1 Professorial level relative to assistant professor level. Ecosystem
relative to no ecosystem. Twenty country controls relative to Germany as the largest European economy were
included.