The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford

Abstract Professorial entrepreneurship has recently attracted much attention. This paper draws upon historical research, a survey of faculty, and an Internet-based methodology for identifying professorial affiliations with entrepreneurial firms at two of the premier electrical engineering and computer science departments in the US, The University of California, Berkeley and Stanford. We employ the concept of “nested embeddedness” to explain why the faculty members in these two institutions have different levels of entrepreneurship and corporate involvement. EE&CS faculty at both universities were found to be socially embedded in departments and disciplines that supported and placed value on entrepreneurial activities. However, while being embedded in a university environment with a history of success and high level of support for entrepreneurship, EE&CS faculty at Stanford had a significantly greater level of corporate involvement, including the founding of start-ups. Although significantly less than Stanford, the level of corporate involvement among EE&CS faculty at Berkeley was also substantial. This suggests that being embedded in an academic department and disciplines with cultures that are supportive of entrepreneurial activity can help counteract the disincentives created by a university environment that is not strongly supportive of these activities.

[1]  Henry S. Rowen,et al.  The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 2000 .

[2]  Brent D. Beal,et al.  The Embeddedness of Organizations: Dialogue & Directions , 1999 .

[3]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Research Universities and Local Economic Development: Lessons from the History of the Johns Hopkins University , 2003 .

[4]  P. Swann,et al.  A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology , 1996 .

[5]  Gary W. Matkin.  Technology transfer and the university , 1990 .

[6]  T. Sturgeon.  How Silicon Valley Came to Be , 2000 .

[7]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Rebecca S. Lowen,et al.  Creating the Cold War University: The Transformation of Stanford , 1997 .

[9]  Rosemarie H. Ziedonis,et al.  The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U , 2001 .

[10]  W. L. Sumner.  The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution , 1959, Nature.

[11]  Magnus Henrekson,et al.  Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property , 2003 .

[12]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

[13]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[14]  David Charles,et al.  Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property , 1999 .

[15]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[16]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[17]  S. Kostof.  America by Design , 1987 .

[18]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing , 1999, The New Economic Sociology.

[19]  E. Mansfield,et al.  The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support , 1996 .

[20]  T. Dublin,et al.  Research policy , 2021, The Routledge Handbook of Gender and EU Politics.

[21]  D. Bok.  Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education , 2003 .

[22]  Laurence Veysey,et al.  To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940 , 1986 .

[23]  R. Nelson,et al.  On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope , 1990 .

[24]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[25]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[26]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[27]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[29]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[30]  G. Masiero,et al.  Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education , 2003 .

[31]  B. Seely,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice , 1991 .

[32]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology , 1996 .

[33]  Paul Brazzell,et al.  Conflict of interest. , 2002, The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne.

[34]  Javier M. Gonzales.  MINUTES of the Board of Regents. , 1953, Annals of internal medicine.

[35]  Roger L. Geiger,et al.  To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940 by Roger L. Geiger (review) , 1986, Technology and Culture.

[36]  Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities , 2002 .

[37]  E. Mansfield.  Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations , 1995 .

[38]  R. Nelson,et al.  American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry , 1994 .

[39]  M. Kenney,et al.  Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence: industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1999 .

[40]  Harvey E. Wagner.  The Open Corporation , 1991 .

[41]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Privatizing the Intellectual Commons: Universities and the Commercialization of Biotechnology , 1998 .

[42]  Harvey Brooks,et al.  Research universities and the social contract for science , 1993 .