Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities

The Malaysian government has been striving to provide an environment conducive to research commercialisation in the country. Despite the efforts, the targeted research commercialisation rate has yet to be achieved. As such, it is important to understand the motivation of the academic researchers who...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Saida Farhanah, Sarkam
Format:	Thesis
Language:	eng eng
Published:	2015
Subjects:	HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management Employment
Online Access:	https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/1/s811875.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/2/s811875_abstract.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-uum-etd.4893
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
collection	UUM ETD
language	eng eng
advisor	Yaacob, Noorulsadiqin Azbiya
topic	HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management Employment
spellingShingle	HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management Employment Saida Farhanah, Sarkam Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities
description	The Malaysian government has been striving to provide an environment conducive to research commercialisation in the country. Despite the efforts, the targeted research commercialisation rate has yet to be achieved. As such, it is important to understand the motivation of the academic researchers who had successfully commercialised their research. Literature classifies motivation factors as extrinsic, intrinsic, and prosocial, which might exist independently or in a combination (mixed-motivation). Within the academic research commercialisation context, a considerable number of existing studies have discussed the role of extrinsic motivation factors, while the issues of intrinsic and prosocial factors have not been much studied. Thus, this study aimed to further understand the role of each motivation factor as well as the role of mixed-motivation factors among academic researchers who had successfully commercialised their research results. In achieving the study‟s objective, this study utilised the Self-Concordance Theory as the study‟s framework and applied a qualitative case study approach. The informants in the study were the academic researchers from four Malaysian technical universities. The research project was selected as the unit of analysis. The study revealed that academic researchers were highly motivated by the combination of all three motivation factors (mixed-motivation factors) in supporting their commercialisation activities. The recurring themes for all the successful research projects were passion and the personal traits of the academic researchers. The results of this study enrich the Self-Concordance Theory through highlighting the role of the mixed-motivation factors in explaining that the goals of academic researchers‟ commercialisation activities were closely linked to their personal goals
format	Thesis
qualification_name	masters
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Saida Farhanah, Sarkam
author_facet	Saida Farhanah, Sarkam
author_sort	Saida Farhanah, Sarkam
title	Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities
title_short	Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities
title_full	Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities
title_fullStr	Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities
title_full_unstemmed	Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities
title_sort	motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among malaysian technical universities
granting_institution	Universiti Utara Malaysia
granting_department	Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business
publishDate	2015
url	https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/1/s811875.pdf https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/2/s811875_abstract.pdf
_version_	1747827822148190208
spelling	my-uum-etd.48932021-04-05T01:09:48Z Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities 2015 Saida Farhanah, Sarkam Yaacob, Noorulsadiqin Azbiya Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business Othman Yeop Abdullah Graduate School of Business HF5549-5549.5 Personnel Management. Employment The Malaysian government has been striving to provide an environment conducive to research commercialisation in the country. Despite the efforts, the targeted research commercialisation rate has yet to be achieved. As such, it is important to understand the motivation of the academic researchers who had successfully commercialised their research. Literature classifies motivation factors as extrinsic, intrinsic, and prosocial, which might exist independently or in a combination (mixed-motivation). Within the academic research commercialisation context, a considerable number of existing studies have discussed the role of extrinsic motivation factors, while the issues of intrinsic and prosocial factors have not been much studied. Thus, this study aimed to further understand the role of each motivation factor as well as the role of mixed-motivation factors among academic researchers who had successfully commercialised their research results. In achieving the study‟s objective, this study utilised the Self-Concordance Theory as the study‟s framework and applied a qualitative case study approach. The informants in the study were the academic researchers from four Malaysian technical universities. The research project was selected as the unit of analysis. The study revealed that academic researchers were highly motivated by the combination of all three motivation factors (mixed-motivation factors) in supporting their commercialisation activities. The recurring themes for all the successful research projects were passion and the personal traits of the academic researchers. The results of this study enrich the Self-Concordance Theory through highlighting the role of the mixed-motivation factors in explaining that the goals of academic researchers‟ commercialisation activities were closely linked to their personal goals 2015 Thesis https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/ https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/1/s811875.pdf text eng public https://etd.uum.edu.my/4893/2/s811875_abstract.pdf text eng public masters masters Universiti Utara Malaysia Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting Patents in Context: From Exploring MIT Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60. AIM. (2011). Innovating Malaysia (p. 31). Cyberjaya, Selangor: Agensi Inovasi Malaysia. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950–67. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8014837. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D‟Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6486.2008.00804.x. Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “ Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47. doi:10.1080/10967490801887889. ATN. (2013). Australian Technology Network of Universities. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://www.atn.edu.au/. Audretsch, D. B., & Aldridge, T. T. (2009). Scientist commercialization as conduit of knowledge spillovers. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(4), 897–905. doi:10.1007/s00168-009-0297-4. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005a). Do university policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34 (3), 343–347. doi:10.1016/j.respol. 2005.01.006. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005b). Does the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34 (3), 1191-1202. doi:10.1016/j.respol. 2005.03.012. AUKU. (2009). Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (Pindaan) 2009. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Kerajaan Negara Malaysia. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my/pdf/MOHE/akta_a1342-bm_pindaan_auku_2009.pdf. AUTM. (2008). The Better World Report (p. 61). Deerfield, US: Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM. (2012). Association of University Technology Managers. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from http://www.autm.net/Home.htm. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 599–623. doi:10.1016/j.jebo .2006.05.015. Bains, W. (2005). How academics can make (extra) money out of their science. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 11(4), 353–363. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jcb.3040137. Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207. Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289–311. doi: 10.1007/ s11192-007-1865-y. Baldini, N. (2010). Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation, 30(2), 109–116. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009 .09.007. Baldini, N. (2011). University patenting: Patterns of faculty motivations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(2), 103–121. doi:10.1080/09537325.2011.543329 Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0206-5. Baycan, T., & Stough, R. R. (2013). Bridging knowledge to commercialization: the good, the bad, and the challenging. The Annals of Regional Science, 50(2): 367-405. doi:10.1007/s00168-012-0510-8. Behboudi, M., Jalili, N., & Mousakhani, M. (2011). Examine the commercialization research outcomes in Iran: A Structural Equation Model. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(7), 261–276. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n7p261. Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: Impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179–199. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333 (99)00112-2. Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96 (5): 1652–78. Benedetti, A. A. (2012). Event-level intrinsic, extrinsic, and prosocial motivation: Effects on well-being (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Akron, Ohio, USA. Bengtsson, L., Nilsson, A. S., & Rickne, A. (2009, April). Why and how do researchers engage themselves in commercialization of research ? Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities (OLKC). Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0295. Bhaduri, S., & Kumar, H. (2009). Tracing the motivation to innovate: A study of grassroot innovators in India. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute of Economics. Bird, B. J., & Allen, D. N. (1989). Faculty entrepreneurship in research university environments. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(5), 583–596. Bland, C. J., Seaquist, E., Pacala, J. T., & Finstad, D. (2002). One school‟s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Academic Medicine, 77(5), 368–376. Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.008. Boardman, P. C., Ponomariov, B. L., & Craig Boardman, P. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation. 2008.03.008. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. The Academy of Managament Journal, 46(5), 554–571. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, (38), 1–67. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393–1402. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002. Carayol, N. (2003). Objectives, agreements and matching in science–industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32(6), 887–908. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333 (02)00108-7. Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M. (2009).The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936–946. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.03.005. Collier, A., & Gray, B. (2010). The commercialisation of university innovations: A qualitative analysis of the New Zealand situation (pp. 1–121). Dunedin, New Zealand: Centre for Entrepreneurship, School of Business, University of Otago. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice ? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72. Crespi, G., Este, P. D., Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & D‟Este, P. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40(1), 55–68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010 .09.010. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed., p. 272). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed., p. 448). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing academic research : The quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1403–1437. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtr034. D‟Este, P., Llopis, O., & Yegros, A. (2013). Conducting prosocial research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness of the social impact of research. Paper presented at the35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013. Barcelona, Spain. D‟Este, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Rentocchini, F. (2012). Inventors and entrepreneurs in academia: What types of skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32(5), 293–303. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.12.005. D‟Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295– 1313. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002. D‟Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z. Dai, Y. (2007). Patent Or Publish? University Researcher‟s Choice Between Traditional and Commercial Research Outcomes (unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Graduate School, Syracuse University, New York. Dardak, R. A. (2013). Opportunity recognition and the process of technology transfer from government research institution to private firms: The case of agro-based technology in Malaysia (unpublished doctoral dissertation). UKM154 Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia. Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2009). Scientists‟ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 14–37. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9142-2. De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2012). Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit. Research Policy, 41(9): 1666–1682. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.026. De Jong, J. P. J. (2006). The decision to innovate: Literature and propositions. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs (SCALES). De Melo-Martín, I. (2012). Patenting and the gender gap: Should women be encouraged to patent more? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2): 491-504. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9344-5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “ what ” and “ why ” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psyshological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01. Dhewanto, W., & Umam, K. K. (2009).Technology commercialisation in a developing country : Current condition and its challenge in Indonesia.The Asian Journal of Technology Management, 2(1), 1–7. Diefendorff, J. M., & Chandler, M. M. (2010). Motivating employees. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 65-135). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313, 665–667. doi:10.1126/science.1124832. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management Research: An Introduction (2nd ed., p. 208). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627. doi:10.2307/258921. EPU. (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Economic Planning Unit. EPU. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan 2010-2015. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Economic Planning Unit. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (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. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99) 00055-4. Exley, C. (2013). Incentives for Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Reputations. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Discussion Paper No. 12-022. CA: Stanford University. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders‟ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 380–402. doi: 10.1007/s10961-008-9093-z. Fisch, C. O., Hassel, T. M., Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2014). University patenting: A comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961- 014-9355-x. Forgeard, M. J. C., & Mecklenburg, A. C. (2013). The two dimensions of motivation and a reciprocal model of the creative process. Review of General Psychology, 17(3), 255-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032104. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322. Geuna, A., & Mowery, D. (2007). Publishing and patenting in US and European universities. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 67–70. doi:10.1080/10438590600982780. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The Governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807. doi:10.1016/j.respol. 2006.04.005. Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy, 39(6), 748–761. doi: 10.1016/j.respol. 2010.03.007. Gleick, J. (1987, August 16). In the trenches of science. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/ 16/magazine/in-the-trenchesof-science.html?page wanted=all&src=pm. Göktepe-Hulten, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423. doi: 10.1007/s10961- 009-9126-2. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. doi:10.1037/0021-9010. 93.1.48. Grant, A. M. & Berg, J. M. (2010). Prosocial motivation at work: How making a difference makes a difference. In K. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 28-44). Place: Oxford University Press. Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and posocial motivations, perpesctive taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045– 1057. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005. Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. a. (2011).Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010. 09.012. Heng, H. L., Amran, M. R., & Aslan, A. S. (2012). Knowledge determinant in university commercialization : A case study of Malaysia public university. Asia Pacific Business Innovation and Technology Management, 40, 251–257. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.187. Ismail, A. (2013). Taking R&D to market: Issues and challenges (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved from http://ilqam.uitm.edu.my/v4/wpcontent/uplo ads/2013/02/Commercialization-of-RND-ver-4-The- Typhidotstory.pdf. Ismail, K. (2008). Issues in commercialisation and management. Skudai, Malaysia: Ismail, K., Majid, I. A., & Omar, W. Z. W. (2011). Commercialization of university patents : A case study. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5(5), 80–91. Ismail, K., Omar, W. Z. W., Aziz, A. A., Soehod, K., & Ghani, U. N. A. (2012, March). Organizational influences in university spin-off formations in Malaysia. Paper presented at the3rd International Conference on Business and Economics. Bandung, Indonesia. Ismail, K., Omar, W. Z. W., & Majid, I. A. (2011). The commercialisation process of patents by universities. African Journal of Business Management, 5(17), 7198–7208. doi: 10.5897/AJBM09.255. Ismail, K., Senin, A. A., Mun, S. W., & Chen, W. S. (2012). Decision making process in the commercialization of university patent in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management, 6(2), 681–689. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.2480. Ismail, K., Zaidi, W. A. N., Omar, W. A. N., & Majid, I. A. (2010). Do the characterisitics of technology lead to university patents being unexploited? Jurnal Teknologi, 52, 105–128. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: “The best we can do with the s ** t we get to work with.” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1271–1300. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00083-3. Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422. doi: 10.1016/j.respol. 2009.07.007. Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. a., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231–244. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.231 Krabel, S., & Schacht, A. (2012). The influence of leadership on academic scientsist‟ propensity to commercialize research findings (pp. 1–24, 0207). Jena, Germany: Jena Economic Research Papers. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008).Incentives and Invention in Universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.406921. Lakitan, B. (2013). Connecting all the dots: Identifying the “actor level” challenges in establishing effective innovation system in Indonesia. Technology in Society, 35(1), 41–54. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc. 2013.03.002. 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. doi: 10.1177/0306312 709349963. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: “Gold”, “ribbon” or “puzzle”? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002. Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40(1), 6–19. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.013. Lee, Y. S. (1996). “Technology transfer” and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2/3), 317–342. Link, A. N., Scott, J. T., & Siegel, D. S. (2003). The economics of intellectual property at universities: An overview of the special issue. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1217–1225. doi: 10.1016/ S0167-7187(03)00080-8. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641– 655. doi:10.1093/icc/dtm020. Lissoni, F. (2012). Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Patent Information, 34(3), 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2012.03.002. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 353– 364. doi:10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034127.01889.86. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075. doi: 10.1016/ j.respol.2005.05.007. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusve nt.2003.12.003. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research. CA: Sage Publication. MASTIC. (2013). Kajian R&D Kebangsaan. Retrieved May 23, 2013, from http://www.mastic.gov.my/web/guest/ statistik-kajian-rnd-kebangsaan. Mathew, M., & Chakraborty, N. B. N. (2012). Aspirations of Indian inventors moderated by patenting experience, age and sector. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 23(1), 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2012.03.007. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (3rd ed., p. 320). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659. Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., & Brennan, M. (2011). An exploratory study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology transfer processes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(6), 663–684. doi: 10.1108/13552551111174729. MOHE. (2007). National Higher Education Plan 2007-2010. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Higher Education. MOHE. (2010). MOHE Implementation Plan for Development of Innovative Human Capital at Tertiary Level. MOHE: Putrajaya, Malaysia. MOHE. (2012). Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www. mohe.gov.my/. MOHE. (2010). MOHE Implementation Plan for Development of Innovative Human Capital at Tertiary Level. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Higher Education. Morandi, V. (2013). The management of industry–university joint research projects: how do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2): 69-92. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9228-5. MOSTI. (2009). Intellectual Property Commercialisation Policy for Research & Development (R&D) Projects Funded by the Government of Malaysia (p. 35). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. MOSTI. (2013). Taklimat Dana Sains dan Dana Pra-Pengkomersilan (Dana Tekno dan Dana Inovasi). (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved from http://www.mastic.gov.my/documents/10156/dabc90c3-9286-4354-9ab1-bec83e 348e46. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6 MUCET. (2012). Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on Engineering and Technology 2012. Retrieved from http://mucet2012.unimap.edu.my/. Nelson, A. J. (2012). Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford. Research Policy, 41(4), 678–691. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.11.004. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9124-4. OECD. (2013). Malaysia: Innovation profile. In Innovation in Southeast Asia (p. 348). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/978926412 8712-en. Okamuro, H., & Nishimura, J. (2012). Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university-industry research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 273–301. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9253-z. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114. doi: 10.1023/A:1007892413 701. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)000 45-3. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). CA: Sage. Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40(4), 539–552. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.007. Perkmann, M., Neely, A., & Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system. R&D Management, 41(2), 202–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9310.2011.00637.x. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., Mckelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., Este, P. D., … Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation : A review of the literature on university – industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442. doi: 10.1016/ j.respol.2012.09.007. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university-industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065. doi:10.1093/icc/dtp015. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., Reilly, C. O., Lupton, G., & O‟Reilly, C. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010. 12.003. Ponomariov, B., & Craig Boardman, P. (2007). The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 301–313. doi:10.1007/s10961-007-9029-z. Powell, W. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 253–277. PriceWaterHouseCoopers. (2007). Staying in control while unlocking the knowledge.. The Hague: PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Rigg, J., Salamanca, A., & Parnwell, M. (2012). Joining the dots of Agrarian change in Asia: A 25 year view from Thailand. World Development, 40(7), 1469–1481. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.001. RMC-MOHE. (2010). R&D Products of Public Universities in Malaysia 2010 (p. 432). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Research Management Centre, MOHE. Rosa, P., & Dawson, A. (2006). Gender and the commercialization of university science: Academic founders of spinout companies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(4), 341–366. doi: 10.1080/089856 20600680059. Rosenberg, N. (1974). Science, invention and economic growth. The Economic Journal, 84(333), 90–108. doi:10.2307/2230485. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791. doi:10.1093/icc/dtm023. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999. 1020. Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2012). Taste for science, taste for commercialization, and hybrid scientists. Paper presented at the 34th DRUID Celebration Conference 2012. Copenhagen, Denmark. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003- 066X.55.1.5. Sheldon, K., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 152–165. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.152. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., Demir, M., & Sun, Z. (2004). Self-Concordance and Subjective Well-Being in Four Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(2), 209–223. doi: 10.1177/002202 2103262245. Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1467–92. doi:10.1111/j.1467 -6494.2009.00589.x. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It‟s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 475–86. doi:10.1177/ 0146167203261883. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1-2), 115–142. doi:10.1016/j. jengtecman.2003.12.006. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices : An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01) 00196-2. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(3), 303–339. Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235. Stephan, P. E. (2008). Science and the university : Challenges for future research. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 313–324. doi:10.1093/cesifo/ifn014. Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 475–487. doi:10.1007/s10961-007-9033-3. Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2007). Who‟s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 16(2), 71–99. doi: 10.1080/1043 8590600982806. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time (p. 194). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free : Scientists‟ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university – industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1–31. doi:10.1093/icc/dts004. Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2012). In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–44. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1598 456. Thakor, N. (2009). Bench to bedside: Motivation for university industry partnership. Paper presented at the 31st Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS, September 2-6. Minneapolis, Minnesota, US. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72. doi:10.1023/A:1007884111883 Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 343–353. doi:10.1007/s10961- 005-2580-6. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104. Tornatzky, L. & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technology innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.003. Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & Rosette, S. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 249–271. Vikneswaran, N. (2011, June 5). Academic Authorship: KPI vs KIP. New Sunday Times, p. 16. Walsh, J. P., & Hong, W. (2009). For money or glory? Commercialization, competition, and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university. The Sociological Quarterly, 50, 145–171. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in 20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 44(6): 1785–88. Wigren-Kristoferson, C. (2011). Mind the gap and bridge the gap: Research excellence and diffusion of academic knowledge in Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 38(July), 481–492. doi:10.3152/030234211X12960315267859. Wonglimpiyarat, J., & Yuberk, N. (2005). In support of innovation management and Roger‟s Innovation Diffusion theory. Government Information Quarterly, 22(3), 411–422. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2005.05.005. Yaacob, N. A. (2011). Issues of Commercialization of Biotechnology Related Researches in Malaysian Research Universities (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia. Yaacob, N. A., Rasli, A. M., Senin, A. A., & Othman, S. N. (2011). Perceptions of commercialization activities of research results among academic researchers in Malaysia. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 24–32. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed., p. 219). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. Zbierowski, P., Weclawska, D., Tarnawa, A., Zadura-lichota, P., & Bratnicki, M. (2012). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Poland. Radom, Poland: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Zhao, F. (2004). Commercialization of research: A case study of Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 223–236. doi: 10.1080/0729436042000206672. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (1996). Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(23), 12709–16.

Motivation factors of successful academic research commercialization among Malaysian technical universities

Similar Items