Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-877X (Print) 1469-9486 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Towards the university entrepreneurial mission:

Portuguese academics’ self-perspective of their
role in knowledge transfer

Elisabete Sá, Diana Dias & Maria José Sá

To cite this article: Elisabete Sá, Diana Dias & Maria José Sá (2018) Towards the university
entrepreneurial mission: Portuguese academics’ self-perspective of their role in knowledge transfer,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42:6, 784-796, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1311998

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1311998

Published online: 19 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 224

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2018
VOL. 42, NO. 6, 784–796
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1311998

Towards the university entrepreneurial mission: Portuguese

academics’ self-perspective of their role in knowledge transfer
Elisabete Sáa, Diana Diasb,c and Maria José Sác
a
School of Economics and Management; University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; bUniversidade Europeia, Laureate
International Universities, Lisbon, Portugal; cCentre for Research in Higher Education Policies, CIPES, Matosinhos,
Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The role of the university in society and the economy is evolving. Universities Received 24 February 2016
produce knowledge that promotes technological developments, which Accepted 28 July 2016
are, in turn, critical to economic growth and competitiveness in the global
KEYWORDS
economy. Therefore, it is increasingly expected that universities become Academic entrepreneurship;
more entrepreneurial and assume this third mission in order to promote knowledge transfer;
innovation and development through the provision of technologies and university; academic
business ventures. Drawing on data collected for The Changing Academic profession; engagement;
Profession Project – a comparative survey of the academic profession carried entrepreneurial university
out in 19 countries from all over the world – this article explores Portuguese
academic entrepreneurship engagement based on the involvement in the
process of technology transfer as an activity performed in the context of
research activities. It thus aims to contribute to knowledge about academics’
engagement in entrepreneurial activity. Results from this study suggest that
Portuguese academics are fairly involved in entrepreneurial activities and
that there is an overall positive attitude towards application of research to
real problems. Furthermore, it was possible to see that academics involved
in processes of technology transfer are not only focused on activities such
as research but also service to the outside community. However, when
comparing academics involved and not involved in entrepreneurial activities,
several significant differences are found in their attitudes, perceptions and
behaviours.

1. Introduction
The role of the university in society and the economy has been changing. The first academic rev-
olution, originating in the late nineteenth century, added the research function to the traditional
mission of teaching. Now most universities are undergoing a second revolution, embracing a third
mission of contributing to economic development (Etzkowitz 1998, 2003, 2012). Universities pro-
duce knowledge that promotes technological developments, which, in turn, are crucial to economic
growth and competitiveness in the global economy in the medium to long term (Klofsten and
Jones-Evans 2000; Mueller 2006; Svensson, Klofsten, and Etzkowitz 2012). Therefore, it is increasingly
expected that universities become more entrepreneurial and assume this third mission in order to
promote innovation and development through the supply of technologies and business ventures
(Lukannen 2003).
In this context, the academic institution is moving away from being considered an isolated island of
knowledge or an ‘ivory tower’ (Etzkowitz 1998, 2012; Svensson, Klofsten, and Etzkowitz 2012), and as

CONTACT  Maria José Sá  mjsa@cipes.up.pt

© 2017 UCU
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION   785

the academic institution accepts its responsibility as an engine of development, greater collaboration
with industry should be expected (Powers and McDougall 2005). Since both government and industry
are interested in the results of academic knowledge development, there has been increasing pressure
on universities to be involved in entrepreneurial activities (Philpott et al. 2011). The confluence and
complementarity of capacities, expectations and objectives of these three spheres create a ‘triple helix’ of
intertwined university–industry–government relations based on dynamic interaction and overlay of the
three strands (Etzkowitz 2010; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Svensson, Klofsten, and Etzkowitz 2012).
The development of an entrepreneurial culture is not widely embraced within academia, how-
ever. Critics of this model see it as a deformation of the university’s mission of teaching and research
(Etzkowitz 2003) and they emphasise the conflict of values and crisis of identities among academic
scientists (Lam 2010). Etzkowitz (2003), however, considers that conflicts of interest may be viewed
positively as a sign that academia is changing. Drawing on the data collected for the Changing Academic
Profession Project (CAP), the present study explores the academics’ engagement in entrepreneurial
activities related to their research. Despite recognition of the importance of academic entrepreneurship
and the existence of mixed attitudes towards it by scholars, there is still little research into the individual
academic and their entrepreneurial potential (Wennberg, Wiklund, and Wright 2011). Some studies
have attempted to identify the determinants of knowledge transfer (e.g. Landry, Amara, and Ouimet
2007) and of university spin-off activity (O’Shea, Chugh, and Allen 2008). However, the determinants
of academic entrepreneurship and what influences academics’ roles, motivations and perceptions of
entrepreneurship are still under-researched topics (Clarysse, Tartari, and Salter 2011; Göktepe-Hulten
and Mahagaonkar 2010).
This article contributes to knowledge on this topic by exploring academics’ engagement in entre-
preneurial activity based on their involvement in the process of technology transfer performed in
the context of research activities. Two groups of academics involved in such activities are compared
regarding their: (1) attitude towards application of academic knowledge; (2) perceptions of institutional
support; (3) interaction with the community outside academe; and (4) research funding. Results revealed
that Portuguese academics are fairly involved in entrepreneurial activities and that there is an overall
positive attitude towards application of research to real problems. However, when comparing the two
groups of Portuguese academics (those involved and not involved in processes of technology transfer
in the previous academic year in the context of their research activities), several significant differences
are found in their attitudes, perceptions and behaviours.

2.  Literature review

2.1.  Engagement in academic entrepreneurship
Academic entrepreneurship is presented in the literature as a very broad concept, covering different
strategies to explore scientific and technological knowledge. It can be defined as the various ways in
which academics take direct part in research commercialisation (Henrekson and Rosenberg 2001) or
as all commercialisation activities outside the normally accepted duties of basic research and teaching
(Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000). These activities may include: consultancy, research contracts, joint
ventures, spin-out and spin-in firms and intellectual capital management in which both academics and
students may be involved (Brennan, Wall, and Mcgowan 2005).
The wide range of academic entrepreneurial activities can be placed on a continuum, on one side
of which are lower-level (Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000) or softer activities (Philpott et al. 2011), such
as consultancy, grantsmanship and contract research, and, on the other side, higher-level or harder
activities, such as establishing new businesses and creating technology parks. Philpott et al. (2011) place
on the softer side of the academic entrepreneurship continuum some activities that may not even be
viewed as entrepreneurial by some elements of the academic community, such as producing highly
qualified graduates and publishing academic results. The authors consider that these activities also
contribute to improving regional and national economic performance as well as the financial wellbeing
786    E. SÁ ET AL.

(although indirect) of the institution, and, therefore, can be considered entrepreneurial. Moreover, they
note that the majority of technology and knowledge transfer activities are soft in nature, manifesting
in the form of conferences/workshops, publications and consultancy. The authors believe that these
soft activities may well be a good way for the institution to nurture entrepreneurial activities that can
be achieved by the university as a whole and gain time for academics to adjust to the university’s new
mission. As the authors posit, ‘Departments have ‘to learn to walk before they can run” (ibid, 168).
Etzkowitz (2003) asserts that the university has become entrepreneurial exogenously, through the
establishment of relationships and interactions with industry, often through governmental initiatives,
but also endogenously in terms of an internal change resulting from the way in which the research
university developed. However, while both governments and industry seem to have clearly identified
an opportunity for development in transferring scientific knowledge, the ideal of an entrepreneurial
university has not gained widespread consensus within academia. Therefore, the attitude towards
academic entrepreneurship may influence both the decision to be involved in entrepreneurial activities
and the type or level of this involvement.

2.2.  Attitudes towards academic entrepreneurship and institutional support

The willingness of academics to be involved in entrepreneurial activities and to reshape the boundary
between science and business varies a great deal, presenting very distinct responses to university–
industry ties, as shown by Lam (2010). Based on these differences, the researcher suggests a typology of
scientists placed on a continuum between two polar types that represent the ‘old school’ traditionalists,
who adhere to the traditional norms of basic science and resist approaching commercial relationships,
versus the ‘new school’ entrepreneurial scientists, who participate in both science and business arenas.
Some scientists get involved in these activities as a complement to their academic work; others, while
working full time in a new firm, are still essentially dedicated to scientific purposes; and yet others are
really scientific entrepreneurs, working in a firm and regarding science as a business (Dickson, Coles,
and Smith 1998).
The results of a study presented by Bird, Hayward, and Allen (1993) showed that values and interests
have a relationship with entrepreneurial activity and that, while valuing industry is positively related to
academic entrepreneurship, experiencing role conflict has a negative effect on entrepreneurial activi-
ties. Although Etzkowitz (1998) maintains that the negative connotations of the term ‘entrepreneurial
scientist’ have become attenuated over the years and that academic scientists often show willingness to
share their activity between the laboratory and the firm, the truth is that the entrepreneurial perspective
sometimes clashes with academic values and culture, as well as creates operational problems (Lukannen
2003). Philpott et al. (2011) found that while some academics seemed to appreciate the movement
towards an entrepreneurial university, others did not perceive it as a positive progression. The absence
of a general attitudinal and normative acceptance of the entrepreneurial function within academia
may hinder and delay the realisation of the social and economic potential of scientific knowledge. In
fact, some faculty members may not disclose their inventions on the grounds that commercial activity
is inappropriate for academics (Berkowitz and Feldman 2008).
Not only personal values and beliefs but also institutional support may influence involvement in
entrepreneurship. At the institutional level, unlike in the United States, where in some given areas faculty
members’ and researchers’ ability to attract external funding has considerable influence on likelihood of
promotion (Powers and McDougall 2005), in Europe, scientific output, particularly measured by number
of publications, and teaching have greater importance, preventing involvement with industry. In fact, in
their study carried out in a European university, Philpott et al. (2011) show that more entrepreneurial-
ly-inclined academic participants perceive the university’s current promotional system as not favouring
engagement in academic entrepreneurship; indeed, they feel that they face professional penalties in
career progression as a result of being involved in such activities. In contrast, there is evidence that
academic entrepreneurs are positively influenced by internal models of entrepreneurial behaviour.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION   787

Berkowitz and Feldman (2008), for instance, found that when the head of department has an active
involvement in technology transfer activities, other department members are also more likely to become
engaged, if only for symbolic reasons. These results show the importance of promoting entrepreneurial
initiatives via departmental strategies and creating a culture of entrepreneurship in universities.
Therefore, we would expect to find differences among the scholars in terms of both their attitudes
to academic entrepreneurship and their perceptions about institutional support of their involvement
in such activities. Academics not involved in entrepreneurial activities should be more likely to view
activities that involve instrumentalising knowledge for commercial purposes in a negative light.
Consequently, the following hypothesis is presented:
H1. Academics engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship differ regarding their attitudes towards
the use of academic knowledge.
Similarly, we would expect academics not involved in entrepreneurial activities to view negatively
the support offered by their institutions regarding their involvement in such activities. Therefore:
H2. Academics engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship differ regarding their perception of insti-
tutional support.

2.3.  Interaction with industry and research funding

Research also shows that the propensity to become involved in entrepreneurial activities is positively
affected by the existence of contacts with industry, which, in a circular fashion, helps create a culture of
entrepreneurship in universities (Powers and McDougall 2005). Landry, Amara, and Ouimet (2007) also
noted that the existence of links between researchers and users of research results outside academia,
as well as the focus on research projects based on market needs, has a significant positive impact
on the propensity to transfer knowledge. Similarly, D’Este and Perkmann (2011) found that, all other
things being equal, the experience in collaborative research increases the likelihood of more frequent
collaboration with industry through different levels of involvement.
Collaboration between academia and industry is an essential component of the ‘triple helix’ (Etzkowitz
and Leydesdorff 2000). However, despite many efforts, especially by governments, to promote an inte-
grated and articulated ‘triple helix’ model of innovation and growth, with common objectives of national
and regional development through an economy of knowledge, the fact is that one of the more com-
mon explanations for the emergence of entrepreneurial science is the financial opportunity that may
result from research, which then allows for the financing of more research aimed at commercialisation
(Etzkowitz 1998). Scientists have discovered that this is a way to earn economic returns in order to pro-
tect their academic freedom to engage in further research (Berkowitz and Feldman 2008). In Lam’s (2010)
study, the opportunity to increase funding and other research resources was, in fact, the top motivating
factor mentioned by the vast majority of the academics with industrial links, ahead of others such as
the possibility to apply and exploit research results and to create opportunities for knowledge transfer.
Ironically, public funding shortages, particularly acute in Eastern European countries, where sup-
port fell dramatically within a period of a few years during the early 1990s, may play an important
role in pushing academia in the entrepreneurial direction (Etzkowitz et al. 2000). This lack of a formal
system of research funding was a strong stimulus to the creation of an embryonic entrepreneurial
academic dynamic in US universities during the late nineteenth century (Etzkowitz 2003). Therefore,
paradoxically, public investment in R&D conducted in universities may prevent rather than promote
academic entrepreneurship. Given that licensing and spin offs take longer to generate returns than
research grants and contracts, this may explain academics’ preference for such activities (Philpott et al.
2011). However, different levels and types of industry involvement may be influenced both by different
attitudes toward entrepreneurship and by different motivations for being involved in such. In fact,
D’Este and Perkmann (2011) found that, while patenting and spin-off company formation are motivated
exclusively by the aim of commercially exploiting technology or knowledge as a source of personal
788    E. SÁ ET AL.

income, joint research, contract research and consulting are driven by research-related motives, such
as learning with industry, gaining access to equipment, materials, data, other resources and funding for
advancing research. But even financial motivations are not all seen in the same way. While some may
consider that academics will not get involved beyond the process of licensing unless they can profit
from the successful exploration of an invention, namely through royalties, suggesting that pecuniary
reward is one of the main motives for promoting knowledge transfer (Jensen and Thursby 2001), other
research shows that scientists may, in fact, use patents/invention disclosures to enhance their reputation
and gain recognition, and see financial benefits as less important (Göktepe-Hulten and Mahagaonkar
2010). Considering the findings described above, we would expect to find that both closer collaboration
with industry and the need for funding are associated with greater levels of involvement in academic
entrepreneurship. Thus, we hypothesise that:
H3. Academics engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship differ regarding their contacts with
industry.

H4. Academics engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship differ regarding their patterns of funding.

3.  Methodological approach and sample description

The results presented in this article are based on quantitative data collected in the preliminary phase of
the Changing Academic Profession Project, a comparative survey of the academic profession carried out
in 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan,
the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, the UK and
the US. This is the largest study of its kind, and follows up a similar study carried out by the Carnegie
Foundation in the early 1990s.
In Portugal, the survey was administered electronically to academics and researchers employed
in all Portuguese public universities (N = 14,566) and public polytechnics (N = 10,265) (data refers
to 2007/2008 and was retrieved from GPEARI-Gabinete de Planeamento, Estratégia, Avaliação e
Relações Internacionais 2010). Data collection was made possible by collaboration with the central
administration of each public higher education institution, which mailed the survey to all lecturers
and researchers on the campus using the internal web network and mailing lists. The respondents
filled out the survey through the web page of the project. This article considers 1320 respond-
ents to this electronic survey. The data was quantitatively analysed in order to identify significant
differences between two groups of Portuguese academics: those involved and not involved in
processes of technology transfer in the previous academic year, in the context of their research
activities. This involvement was used as a proxy for academics’ engagement in entrepreneurial
activities. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the two groups regarding
their attitudes to application of academic knowledge; perceptions about institutional support;
and previous experience of industry and research funding.

3.1.  Sample demographics

In Portugal, 55% of the respondents to the CAP survey were men, which mirrors the national gender
composition of the academic profession. In fact, official data released in 2010 by GPEARI showed that
56.6% (20,016) of Portuguese academics were male. In Portugal, the majority of the participant aca-
demics (58.5%, 861 respondents) were between 35–49 years old, while 33.1% were more than 50 years
old and only 8.4% were less than 34 years old.
Concerning their scientific areas, 37.3% of respondents’ were from the humanities and social sciences
(namely, teacher training and education; humanities and arts; social and behavioural sciences; business
and administration, economics; and law), and 56.2% were from engineering and the physical and nat-
ural sciences (including life sciences; physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences; engineering,
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION   789

manufacturing and construction, architecture; agriculture; and medical sciences, health-related sciences,
social services). The remaining academics were from other non-specified areas.
Portuguese academics have, on average, very little experience in industry or as self-employed man-
agers, in either full- or part-time modes. Only 12.6% of the academics reported having had experience
working in industry or on a self-employed basis, and the average length of time of such experience
was less than one year (M = 0.81 years). Regarding combining current academic activity with business
activity, only 1.4% of these academics also works in a business organisation outside of academe and
3.1% combine their academic job with self-employed activity.
Regarding research funding, on average, respondents indicated that 46.5% of their funds come from
public research funding agencies and 21% from the institution itself, these being the main sources of
funding. On average, Portuguese academics identified businesses or industry as a source of only 3.8%
of funds dedicated to research. Considering that mean industry funding of research in all 19 countries
involved in this study is 6.9%, we can conclude that Portuguese researchers are still behind in terms of
attracting this type of funding. In fact, comparatively, Portuguese research relies more heavily on public
research funding agencies; these fund more than double the average percentage (22.5%) offered by
the same source in all the other countries in this international study.

4. Findings
As previously mentioned, this article aims to explore differences between academics involved and not
involved in entrepreneurial activities in terms of some of their attitudes, perceptions and behaviours.
In the following sections the proposed hypotheses are tested; however, first we briefly describe the
involvement of Portuguese academic researchers in entrepreneurial activities.

4.1.  Engagement of Portuguese academics in entrepreneurial activities

Participants in the study were asked whether or not they were involved in the process of technology
transfer in the previous academic year, in the context of their research activities. Overall, a vast major-
ity of Portuguese academics (82.7%) were not involved in the process of technology transfer. That is,
although 54.9% of Portuguese academics considered that their primary research was, to a greater
or lesser degree, oriented towards technology transfer, only 17.3% of academics had actually been
engaged in this kind of research over the previous year. When we take the other countries that partic-
ipated in the international study as a reference, this percentage cannot be considered low, however,
since it precisely matches the average rate of involvement in processes of technology transfer of the
other countries in the international study.
When comparing the involvement of academics in processes of technology transfer with other activ-
ities in the context of research, there is a clear tendency to focus on activities such as writing academic
papers describing research results or findings and preparing and conducting experiments, as Table 1
shows. In fact, among several activities concerning research, the process of technology transfer shows
the lowest involvement.
In terms of the specific type of academic entrepreneurial engagement that results in securing patents
for inventions, only 5.1% of academics surveyed had secured one or more over the last three years.
Of these, 81.8% had secured one or two patents and 18.2% had secured three or more patents in the
past three years. It is interesting to note that a significant gap exists between a minority of academics
(4.5%) who produced a large number of patents (20) and the vast majority (95.5%) who produced a
smaller number (up to five patents).
When compared with other scholarly contributions, described in Table 2, it can be concluded that
patenting is the activity in which the smallest number of academics are involved. Again, other types of
academic output are clearly favoured, namely, papers presented at scholarly conferences and articles
published in academic books or journals.
790    E. SÁ ET AL.

Table 1. Involvement in different activities in the context of research during the last or the previous academic year.

N = 904 Academics involved Academics not involved

Writing academic papers that contain research 720 184
results or findings 79.6% 20.4%
Preparing experiments, inquiries, etc. 486 418
53.8% 46.2%
Conducting experiments, inquiries, etc. 465 439
51.4% 48.6%
Purchasing or selecting equipment and research 386 518
supplies 42.7% 57.3%
Supervising a research team or graduate 330 574
research assistants 36.5% 63.5%
Answering calls for proposals or writing research 299 605
grants 33.1% 66.9%
Managing research contracts and budgets 254 650
28.1% 71.9%
Processes of technology transfer 156 748
17.3% 82.7%

Table 2. Number of scholarly contributions completed in the past three years.

Mean contributions Did not Mean

Total number of per researcher produce any contributions/
N = 865 contributions Yes (Yes) (No) total participants
Paper presented at a scholarly 6400 733 8.73 132 7.40
conference 84.7 15.3%
Articles published in an 4771 701 6.80 164 5.51
academic book or journal 81.0% 19.0%
Research report/monograph 1513 446 3.39 419 1.75
written for a funded project 51.6% 48.4%
Professional article written for 1196 306 3.90 559 1.38
a newspaper or magazine 35.4% 64.6%
Scholarly books authored or 602 273 2.20 592 0.69
co-authored 31.6% 68.4%
Scholarly books edited or 499 215 2.32 650 0.58
co-edited 24.9% 75.1%
Artistic work performed or 369 36 10.25 829 0.43
exhibited 4.2% 95.8%
Others 352 98 3.59 767 0.40
11.3% 88.7%
Computer program written for 169 68 2.48 797 0.19
public use 7.9% 92.1%
Video or film produced 132 47 2.80 818 0.15
5.4% 94.6%
Patent secured on a process or 113 44 2.57 821 0.13
invention 5.1% 94.9%

An average of 2.57 patents was secured by those academics who engaged in this scholarly activity.
This average is higher only than that for scholarly books authored or co-authored, scholarly books edited
or co-edited and computer programs written for public use. However, this result may be explained by
the difficulty of discovering something new enough to warrant protection by patent.
In order to explore the differences between attitudes, perceptions and behaviours of those academics
involved and not involved in entrepreneurship, only involvement in the process of technology transfer
is used as a group variable. The results are presented in the next topic.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION   791

Table 3. Differences in means of attitudes and perceptions regarding applicability of academics’ research by involvement in the
process of technology transfer.

Processes of technology transfer

Academics nvolved Academics not involved
n Mean SD n Mean SD p
Primary research is applied/practically-oriented 146 1.91 1.063 708 2.28 1.198 0.000
[1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all]
Primary research is commercially-oriented/intended 146 2.61 1.177 644 4.14 1.119 0.000
for technology transfer [1 = Very much to 5 = Not
at all]
Primary research is socially-oriented/intended for the 143 2.60 1.279 681 2.91 1.411 0.017
betterment of society [1 = Very much to 5 = Not at
all]
Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation 154 1.92 0.940 735 2.17 1.113 0.005
to apply their knowledge to problems in society
[1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree]

4.2.  Attitudes towards research application and institutional support of academic

entrepreneurship
So as to compare the attitudes of academics involved and not involved in entrepreneurial activities –
specifically, technology transfer activities – they were asked to characterise the focus of their primary
research. Table 3 shows that the group of academics involved in technology transfer tended to consider
their research as more applied/practically-oriented than their counterparts. Not surprisingly, involved
academics considered their research substantially more commercially oriented/intended for technol-
ogy transfer than did those academics not involved in technology transfer. The scholars involved in
technology transfer also tended to consider their research as being socially-oriented/intended for the
betterment of society to a greater degree than did not involved academics. Additionally, they tended
to agree to a greater degree that, within their field, they have a professional obligation to apply their
knowledge to problems in society. Although both groups viewed applying research results to solving
real problems in a positive light, the differences in their opinions are all significant at the 0.05 level thus
confirming hypothesis 1: academics engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship differ
regarding their attitudes towards the use of academic knowledge.
In terms of institutional support, participants were invited to state their opinion regarding the extent
to which they believe their institution emphasises commercially-oriented or applied research, encour-
ages academics to adopt service activities/entrepreneurial activities outside the institution, and takes
into consideration the practical relevance/applicability of the work of colleagues when making per-
sonnel decisions (Table 4). Results suggest that academics in general, both involved and not involved
in technology transfer activities, tended to not recognise such institutional support. However, involved
academics disagreed significantly less (M = 2.66) than their not involved colleagues (M = 2.92) that
their institution emphasises commercially-oriented or applied research. The two groups also showed
significant differences in terms of their perception of institutional emphasis on service/entrepreneurial
activities; involved academics offered a less negative opinion about their institution’s praxis (M = 2.99)
than their not involved colleagues (M = 3.22).
The question about institutional emphasis on considering the practical relevance/applicability of the
work of colleagues when making personnel decisions supplied rather interesting results. Both involved
and not involved academics tend to think that this emphasis is not very strong (M = 3.63 and M = 3.55,
respectively). However, in contrast to the previous questions, for this particular issue, although the dif-
ferences are not significant, academics involved in technology transfer activities rated their institutions
lower. This result could indicate that these academics feel under-valued or poorly rewarded for their
involvement in such activities, which would be consistent with findings of previous studies.
792    E. SÁ ET AL.

Table 4. Perceptions of institutional emphasis on involvement in several processes of technology transfer.

Processes of technology transfer

Academics involved Academics not involved
n Mean SD n Mean SD p
Your institution emphasises commercially-oriented or 148 2.66 1.198 678 2.92 1.170 0.018
applied research [1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly
disagree]
Your institution emphasises encouraging academics to 138 2.99 1.310 643 3.22 1.188 0.042
adopt service activities/entrepreneurial activities out-
side the institution [1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all]
Your institution emphasises considering the practical 133 3.63 1.026 633 3.55 1.036 0.389
relevance/applicability of the work of colleagues
when making personnel decisions [1 = Very much to
5 = Not at all]

The results may suggest that academics in general do not feel supported in terms of applying their
knowledge but involved academics may respond positively when institutional encouragement does
exist. Results partially confirm hypothesis 2: academics engaged and not engaged in academic entre-
preneurship differ regarding their perception of institutional support.

4.3.  Collaboration with industry and research funding

As noted when describing the main characteristics of the sample, Portuguese academics show a low
level of involvement in business activities, both as a past experience and as a current activity com-
bined with their academic job. This is a general pattern that is common among both the scholars that
are involved and not involved in technology transfer activities, although we detected a slightly and
non-significantly higher level of industry or self-employment experience among involved academics.
In order to explore further the differences between the two groups we took into account not only work
experience but also the overall pattern of respondents’ academic activities, including service activities
provided to the community outside academe.
Thus, academics were questioned about how many hours they spend in a typical week on each
of the activities presented in Table 5. It is possible to observe that, overall, academics involved in the
process of technology transfer allocated, on average, more time than their counterparts on service,
including services for clients and/or patients, or unpaid consulting, public or voluntary services, and
the differences are significant. It is worth noting, however, that these activities are accorded a low
weighting in terms of academics’ time allocation. In fact, teaching, followed closely by research, still
prevails in the overall activities of academics, leaving less room for the realisation of the university’s
third mission. We can also observe that, on average, academics involved in processes of technology
transfer dedicated more total week hours to their work than the academics not involved, which could
suggest that these activities are supplementary to their normal activity, instead of being a normal part
of it. This difference is statistically significant.
Results indicate, in fact, that involved academics show different activity patterns and that they are
more connected with the market through service, adding evidence to confirm hypothesis 3: academics
engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship differ regarding their contacts with industry.
The small amount of time dedicated to activities other than teaching and researching is indicative
of Portuguese academics not allocating a great deal of time to seeking industry sources of funding.
In fact, as mentioned above when describing the sample, only 3.81% of the research budget comes
from industry sources. There is, however, a higher percentage of funding from businesses or industry
in the group of academics involved in technology transfer processes, and the difference is significant
(see Table 6).
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION   793

Table 5. Differences in mean time allocations for several activities when classes are in session resulting from involvement in pro-
cesses of technology transfer.

Processes of technology transfer

Academics involved Academics not involved
n Mean SD n Mean SD p
Hours per week spent on teaching (preparation of 142 19.35 8.525 695 20.02 9.549 0.436
instructional materials and lesson plans, classroom
instruction, advising students, reading and evaluating
student work)
Hours per week spent on research (reading literature, 142 13.13 7.783 695 12.57 9.582 0.453
writing, conducting experiments, fieldwork)
Hours per week spent on administration (committees, 142 5.84 5.917 695 4.52 5.078 0.014
department meetings, paperwork)
Hours per week spent on service (services to clients and/ 142 2.63 4.834 695 1.24 3.466 0.001
or patients, unpaid consulting, public or voluntary
services)
Hours per week spent on other academic activities 142 2.58 3.591 695 2.13 4.038 0.219
(professional activities not clearly attributable to any
of the categories above)
Total 43.53 40.48 0.022

Table 6. Percentage of funding for research by sources in the current (or previous) academic year resulting from involvement in
processes of technology transfer.

Processes of technology transfer

Academics involved Academics not involved
n Mean SD n Mean SD p
Public research funding agencies 138 47.94 36.132 622 46.22 41.897 0.654
Own institution 138 17.40 26.647 622 21.69 34.051 0.166
Government entities 138 13.80 27.596 622 8.27 22.877 0.014
Businesses or industry 138 7.84 14.649 622 2.89 11.707 0.000
Others 138 4.90 16.290 622 7.19 21.451 0.161
Private not-for-profit founda- 138 4.49 13.183 622 3.77 14.411 0.567
tions/agencies

This result indicates that, in fact, entrepreneurial engagement is related to external fund-raising for
research, confirming hypothesis 4: academics engaged and not engaged in academic entrepreneurship
differ regarding their patterns of funding.
As public funding shortages are expected in the future, this finding should encourage a greater
level of involvement between academe and industry. In fact, overall, the sample held more negative
than positive opinions about research funding (Table 7), although there are no significant differences
in this opinion and academics’ involvement in entrepreneurial activities. This could result from the fact
that, even for the group of academics involved in entrepreneurial processes, the percentage of funding
deriving from industry is low (below 8%) and has no significant impact on academics’ perceptions of
funding availability.
When asked if they felt that pressure to raise external research funds had increased since their first
appointment, Portuguese academics strongly agreed. In this case, academics involved in technology
transfer processes expressed greater agreement and differences between the two groups are significant.
This finding could indicate that their involvement in seeking research funds was motivated by such
financial pressure, confirming the results from previous studies.
Although there is a general feeling that pressure to obtain external funding is rising, it does not have
a practical effect on the research funding pattern of Portuguese universities. In fact, results show the
low involvement of academics in cooperative projects that could benefit universities financially and
their business partners in terms of knowledge transfer that could result in economic developments.
794    E. SÁ ET AL.

Table 7. Opinions regarding funding.

Processes of technology transfer

Academics involved Academics not involved
n Mean SD n Mean SD p
At this institution, how would you evaluate 154 3.71 1.188 730 3.79 1.273 0.447
research funding? [1 = Excellent to 5 = Poor]
The pressure to raise external research funds has 146 1.60 0.972 675 1.83 1.143 0.013
increased since my first appointment
[1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree]

5. Conclusions
Results show that Portuguese academics are not very involved in entrepreneurial tasks, namely the
process of technology transfer, compared to other academic activities and outputs, such as publica-
tions and participation at conferences. The same is true of other activities that promote academic
entrepreneurship, such as patenting. Moreover, the results for Portugal regarding such involvement
are in line with those of the other countries participating in the international CAP study. The negative
attitude towards the commercialisation of knowledge could be an explanation for academics’ low level
of involvement in entrepreneurial activities. In fact, this marketisation of knowledge is, sometimes,
seen as a deformation of the university mission and a clash between values and interests (Etzkowitz
1998). The findings of the present study show, however, that Portuguese academics have an overall
favourable attitude to using research results to solve real problems, regardless of whether they are
involved in entrepreneurial activities or not. In fact, academics involved in the process of technology
transfer have a positive attitude to the application of academic knowledge as an integrative part of
scholarship and even a professional obligation towards society. Even though it was possible to detect
statistically significant differences between the groups of academics involved and not involved in the
process of technology transfer, these results do not show the clear divide found in other studies (e.g.
Bird, Hayward, and Allen 1993), which could mean that attitudes are changing faster than behaviour.
Previous studies also suggest that institutional support is important to promote academics’ involve-
ment in entrepreneurial activities. The results show, however, that Portuguese academics do not feel
very encouraged by their institutions to engage in such tasks and even suggest that they may feel a
disincentive to do so.
It was also possible to detect a low level of interaction and established relationships between
Portuguese academics and industry, either through services, paid or unpaid, or professional links. In
fact, the large majority of academics are dedicated exclusively to the academic profession and have very
little previous market experience (in industry or in a self-employed capacity). However, according to
Etzkowitz (2003), the university may become entrepreneurial exogenously, through these interactions,
as well as endogenously, as a result of an organic change in the way academic research is evolving.
The findings of this study give some indications in that direction. It was possible to see that academics
involved in processes of technology transfer are more focused on activities such as research and also
service to the community.
Another factor that previous research pointed as favouring involvement of academics in entrepre-
neurial activities is the search for research funding (Berkowitz and Feldman 2008; D’Este and Perkmann
2011; Lam 2010). This study shows that, in Portugal, the largest research funding providers are still public
agencies and the academic institution itself. Only a small amount of funding comes from businesses
or industry. This could mean that the public funding shortages that affected other European countries
and contributed to pushing academia in the entrepreneurial direction (Etzkowitz et al. 2000) have no
parallel in Portugal. However, given the current financial and economic downturn, it is to be expected
that pressure to raise funding to support research in the industry will increase. In fact, there is a clear
difference in terms of amount of funding deriving from industry sources between the groups of academ-
ics involved and not involved in processes of technology transfer. These results confirm that the search
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION   795

for funding in the industrial arena is related to engagement in entrepreneurial activity. Furthermore,
there is a growing trend for research and innovation programmes to value liaison between academic
research and industry, taking the knowledge from universities to the market. A good example is the
Horizon 2020 programmes, which, by connecting research and innovation, emphasises simultaneously
science, industry and societal challenges.
Still regarding the involvement of Portuguese academics in entrepreneurial activities, another topic
worth discussing is the possibility that knowledge may also be successfully transferred to industry and
society in different ways than simply through the direct involvement of academics in technology transfer
processes. As suggested by Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000) and Philpott et al. (2011), academic entre-
preneurship may be translated into lower level or softer activities, such as producing highly qualified
graduates and publishing academic results that can also contribute to regional and national economic
development. However, other activities, such as consultancy and research contracts, are also important
channels for knowledge transfer and could allow academics to get in touch with the ‘real-life’ settings
that could motivate them to be involved in higher level entrepreneurial activities.
As previous literature suggested, the drivers for involvement in academic entrepreneurship are not
straightforward. Both attitudes towards entrepreneurship and the motivations of academics seem to
be related with the decision to engage in entrepreneurial activities and with the level of involvement,
but they are very dynamic and multidimensional. Along the continuum from the lower to the higher
levels of involvement (Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000), motivations change, as conditions and attitudes
also change. So, it should be interesting to understand how both academics’ perspectives on their
role in the process of knowledge transfer and their actual behaviours as agents of change in an entre-
preneurial university evolve during their academic career. Factors such as age, position and scientific
area of research should be considered, since such aspects represent different contexts and conditions.
Although academics are rather difficult to engage in research studies in the role of subjects, the
present research obtained a fair number of responses, which is one of the most important advantages
of using the CAP project data-set. However, future research in this area could involve a stratified sample,
not only in terms of demographic characteristics, but also in terms of the level and type of involvement
in the process of knowledge transfer, information that was not possible to obtain for this sample.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Elisabete Sá has been an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management in the School of Economics and
Management at the University of Minho since 2002, teaching Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy to bachelor,
master’s and doctoral degree students. She holds a PhD in Marketing and Strategy and a master’s degree in Management.
Her research interests are related to technology transfer, start-ups and entrepreneurial marketing. She also develops various
activities in the business world. Presently, she is a scientific mentor for academic spin offs and nascent ventures within
the University of Minho. She is also involved in marketing and management consultancy activities, particularly targeting
technology-based new ventures.
Diana Dias is a Researcher at the Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES) in Portugal and Associate
Professor at the Laureate International Universities. She is Vice-rector for research and Academic Development (Universidade
Europeia, IADE-U and IPAM) and European representative of teaching and learning in the Research Committee of Laureate
International Universities. Her research focuses on higher education, particularly in quality assessment and access and
equity.
Maria José Sá is a Researcher at the Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES) in Portugal. She is presently
concluding her PhD thesis on Studies in Higher Education, on the topic of students’ performance and success. Her research
areas include student satisfaction and success, gender studies and strategic planning.
796    E. SÁ ET AL.

References
Berkowitz, J., and M. Feldman. 2008. “Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level.” Organization
Science 19 (1): 69–89.
Bird, B., D. Hayward, and D. Allen. 1993. “Conflicts in the Commercialization of Knowledge: Perspectives from Science and
Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 17 (4): 57–77.
Brennan, M. C., A. P. Wall, and P. Mcgowan. 2005. “Academic Entrepreneurship: Assessing Preferences in Nascent
Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 12 (3): 307–322.
Clarysse, B., V. Tartari, and A. Salter. 2011. “The Impact of Entrepreneurial Capacity, Experience and Organizational Support
on Academic Entrepreneurship.” Research Policy 40 (8): 1084–1093.
D’Este, P., and M. Perkmann. 2011. “Why Do Academics Engage with Industry? The Entrepreneurial University and Individual
Motivations.” Journal of Technology Transfer 36 (3): 316–339.
Dickson, K., A. Coles, and H. Smith. 1998. “Science in the Market Place: The Role of the Scientific Entrepreneur.” In New
Technology-Based Firms in the 1990s, edited by W. During and R. Oakey, 27–37. London: Paul Chapman.
Etzkowitz, H. 1998. “The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University-Industry Linkages.”
Research Policy 27 (8): 823–833.
Etzkowitz, H. 2003. “Research Groups as ‘Quasi-Firms’: The Invention of the Entrepreneurial University.” Research Policy 32
(1): 109–121.
Etzkowitz, H. 2010. The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. New York and Oxon: Routledge.
http://www.google.pt/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_fiTAgAAQBAJ&pgis=1
Etzkowitz, H. 2012. The Age of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Universities, Science and Societies. Leiden: Brill.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. “The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix
of University–Industry–Government Relations.” Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.
Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B. R. C. Terra. 2000. “The Future of the University and the University of the Future:
Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm.” Research Policy 29 (2): 313–330.
Göktepe-Hulten, D., and P. Mahagaonkar. 2010. “Inventing and Patenting Activities of Scientists: In the Expectation of
Money or Reputation?” The Journal of Technology Transfer 35 (4): 401–423.
GPEARI-Gabinete de Planeamento, Estratégia, Avaliação e Relações Internacionais. 2010. Docentes Do Ensino Superior (2001-
2008). Lisboa: Gabinete de Planeamento, Estratégia, Avaliação e Relações Internacionais.
Henrekson, M., and N. Rosenberg. 2001. “Designing Efficient Institutions for Science-Based Entrepreneurship: Lesson from
the US and Sweden.” Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (3): 207–231.
Jensen, R., and M. Thursby. 2001. “Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions.” The American
Economic Review 91 (1): 240–259.
Klofsten, M., and D. Jones-Evans. 2000. “Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – The Case of Sweden and
Ireland.” Small Business Economics 14 (4): 299–309.
Lam, A. 2010. “From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’. Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University-
Industry Boundaries.” Social Studies of Science 40 (2): 307–340.
Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Ouimet. 2007. “Determinants of Knowledge Transfer: Evidence from Canadian University
Researchers in Natural Sciences and Engineering.” Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (6): 561–592.
Lukannen, M. 2003. “Exploring Academic Entrepreneurship: Drivers and Tensions of University-Based Business.” Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development 10 (4): 372–382.
Mueller, P. 2006. “Exploring the Knowledge Filter: How Entrepreneurship and University-Industry Relationships Drive
Economic Growth.” Research Policy 35 (10): 1499–1508.
O’Shea, R. P., H. Chugh, and T. J. Allen. 2008. “Determinants and Consequences of University Spinoff Activity: A Conceptual
Framework.” Journal of Technology Transfer 33 (6): 653–666.
Philpott, K., L. Dooley, C. O’Reilly, and G. Lupton. 2011. “The Entrepreneurial University: Examining the Underlying Academic
Tensions.” Technovation 31 (4): 161–170.
Powers, J. B., and P. P. McDougall. 2005. “University Start-up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms That Go Public:
A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing 20 (3): 291–311.
Svensson, P., M. Klofsten, and H. Etzkowitz. 2012. “An Entrepreneurial University Strategy for Renewing a Declining Industrial
City: The Norrköping Way.” European Planning Studies 20 (4): 505–525.
Wennberg, K., J. Wiklund, and M. Wright. 2011. “The Effectiveness of University Knowledge Spillovers: Performance
Differences between University Spinoffs and Corporate Spinoffs.” Research Policy 40 (8): 1128–1114.