Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Paths Affecting Corporate Green Innovation in Resource-Based Cities: A Fuzzy-Set QCA Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Born Not Made: The Impact of Six Entrepreneurial Personality Dimensions on Entrepreneurial Intention: Evidence from Healthcare Higher Education Students
Previous Article in Journal
Creating Persuasive Environmental Communicators: Spokescharacters as Endorsers in Promoting Sustainable Behaviors
Previous Article in Special Issue
University Incubator Support and Entrepreneurial Intention among Tourism Graduates: Mediating Role of Personal Attitude
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010336
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Academic Entrepreneurial Engagement among Academics in Canada and China: The Impact of Research Orientation and University Expectations

by
Li Yu
1,*,
Hui Guo
2,
Olivier Bégin-Caouette
3,
Silvia Mirlene Nakano Koga
3 and
Grace Karram Stephenson
4
1
Institute of Public Policy, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China
2
School of Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
3
Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Higher Education Research, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC H2V 2S9, Canada
4
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 336; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010336
Submission received: 11 November 2022 / Revised: 16 December 2022 / Accepted: 20 December 2022 / Published: 26 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Higher Education for Academic Entrepreneurship)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite a growing awareness of academic entrepreneurship undertaken by professors around the globe, there remain unanswered questions regarding how individual and organizational characteristics shape academics’ decision to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Drawing on data from the 2017–18 Academic Profession in the Knowledge-based Society (APIKS) survey, this study examines research-based and teaching-based academic entrepreneurship engagement in two countries, namely Canada and China, and examines through logistic regressions how academics’ individual research orientation and perceptions of their university’s expectations affect their likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial activities. The results show that a majority of faculty members in the two countries are involved in entrepreneurial activities, including research-based activities (such as contract research, joint research and publications, and consultancy) and teaching-based activities (such as supervising student internships, volunteer-based work, and public lectures). Regression results suggest that academics who emphasize a theoretical research orientation are less likely to demonstrate entrepreneurial involvement, while academics who report a practical, commercial, or social research orientation are more likely to demonstrate entrepreneurial involvement. Academics who perceive that their university expects them to engage in entrepreneurial activities are also more likely to do so. These findings shed light on ways to reinforce academics’ social involvements and contributions in both countries.

1. Introduction

The idea of a university was, for a long time, that of an institution dedicated to the pursuit and transmission of knowledge. Accordingly, the academic profession is often portrayed as composed of persons strongly driven by intrinsic motives who concentrate primarily on the substance of teaching and research [1]. As exemplified by the Triple-Helix Theory, modern universities are, however, also regarded as important engines to produce and transfer knowledge that facilitates regional and national economic development [2], which raises new concerns regarding universities’ and academics’ capacity to convert scientific outputs into commercial and social successes. In response to the global trend toward a knowledge economy and the need to bridge academic research with society, academics from diverse higher-education systems engage in a variety of external activities with different patterns and motivations [3]. Often accomplished in partnership with external stakeholders, academic entrepreneurship facilitates the sustainable development of universities through the inflows of policy, financing, and collaboration instruments and strengthens the economic, social, and environmental impacts of academic outcomes. However, when university academics become entrepreneurs, they encounter more barriers, such as lack of management skills, the lack of a common venture culture, and tension in the relationship with the university [4].
Attention from policymakers and academia has so far been paid to this rise of the third mission, i.e., entrepreneurial activities, among academics and how these activities change the academic profession by bringing in commercialization- and marketization-based rewards. Since universities’ and academics’ entrepreneurial engagement contributes to knowledge transfer and innovation that, in turn, bolster social and economic development [5,6], multiple government agencies around the world have launched numerous initiatives to link scientific research to industrial innovation more closely, particularly marked by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 in the United States [7] and similar initiatives in European countries [8,9,10].
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015, shed a different light on the university’s core missions [11]. Entrepreneurship can be the engine for transforming our world and overcoming the diverse nature of global challenges, contributing to the whole set of UN SDGs or targets [12]. An increasing number of studies also examined how universities’ third mission has been adapted in the light of the SDGs, namely increasing the cultural diversity of the student body, participating in public discourse promoting sustainable development, and working with local and regional partners for greener infrastructure or urban agriculture [13]. Institutional policies are intertwined with public policies regarding SDGs. For instance, in Canada, research councils must follow the Federal Sustainable Development Act and require applicants to include SDG-related expenses in their budget and to indicate if and how their research project could contribute to SDGs [14]. In addition, Universities Canada (2022), an association that represents all universities in the country, adhered to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and launched a vast government-funded initiative to promote universities’ contribution to the SDG [15]. Many of those initiatives rely on academics’ external activities, such as the one university’s partnership with a local NGO to build Canada’s first 3D-printed home for residential uses or another university’s urban agriculture project that encouraged its community to think about food chain issues but also introduced elementary school students to permaculture. In this sense, universities and their academics, as engines of societal transformation [16], are critical players who, with the right set of skills, governance, and management, can meet global challenges [17].
Although most higher-education systems have encouraged academics to establish closer interaction with the outside world over the past decades, most of the literature on this topic focuses mainly on the U.S. and European countries. Few studies have conducted cross-country comparative analysis based on diverse higher-education systems from two continents. In addition, little research has combined the study of individual and institutional characteristics in relation to academics’ entrepreneurial activities. Considering that academics express their research capabilities and skills through diversified orientations and adapt to the working environment differently, it appears necessary to study these understudied factors to improve our understanding of how university academics are interacting with society.
To understand and compare the global trend of academic entrepreneurship and understand how it varies by local institutional contexts, this study uses data from comparable international survey of academics in Canada and China. We selected those two countries based on their specific characteristics, traditions, and models of higher education, which define the pathways of entrepreneurial transformation and potentially lead to diverse patterns of engagement and entrepreneurial activities. For example, Canadian universities have been inspired by the American model, which emphasizes the research component of faculty’s identify, and “The Wisconsin Idea” [18], which encourages universities’ commitment to public service. Chinese higher education emerged from the Confucian model, which rests upon strong nation-state shaping of structures, funding, and priorities and a tendency to universal tertiary participation [19,20,21].
In both countries, academic entrepreneurial engagement can be stimulated by, funded by, and interact with market and government forces. Canada is a developed knowledge economy where, despite universities being largely funded by the public purse, the concepts of markets and industrialization have an impact on the higher-education system [22]. Currently, the Chinese society is undergoing rapid transformation for the sake of entering a market economy and knowledge-based society. In this process, nationwide policies and initiatives may also influence academic entrepreneurial activities. Additionally, countries also differ in their responses to tension between the endogenous or exogenous demands for knowledge production and dissemination [23]. In Canada, since most industries focus on the extraction of natural resources and heavy industries, the higher-education sector became the biggest research producer [24]. Since the 1990s, even though there is no national policy requiring academics to participate in external activities, research councils have encouraged funded researchers to disseminate their findings outside academia [25,26]. In the case of China, public funding remains dominant, but private funding sources are becoming increasingly important for Chinese academics. China’s economic development has recently entered a new phase that is under an increasing pressure of top-down pressure in which the Chinese government’s national development strategy encourages “mass entrepreneurship and innovation” [27]. In the current stage, education administrators and universities frequently introduce new academic entrepreneurship initiatives and policies that aim to provide stronger incentives and promotions [28]. The two compared countries also differ significantly in research and teaching orientation. Canada and China are cases with strong and clearly defined research missions for most institutions. External activities in Canada can be related to teaching, research, and service although it is more often the case with the latter [29]. In China, other than the few research universities at the top of the hierarchy, there is an important and large number of teaching universities.
The objective of this study is therefore to explore and compare academic entrepreneurial engagement in Canada and China. More precisely, this study aims to answer two main research questions: (1) To what extent is academic entrepreneurship in Canada and China similar or different, and how does the country’s specific context may explain these similarities and differences? (2) What are the impacts of academics’ research orientation and perceived university expectations on academic entrepreneurship across countries, and how do country specific contexts reinforce or hinder these impacts?

2. Theoretical Framework and Related Literature

In this study, we focus on “academic entrepreneurial engagement”, which refers to academics’ societal interactions and activities external to their institutions. The external partners may include industry, government, museums, schools, and other civil society organizations since innovation not only occurs through the cooperation between academia and industry but also through its engagement with various societal actors. In our study, academic entrepreneurial engagement is a very broad concept, covering research-based, teaching-based, and other entrepreneurial activities. According to Abreu and Grinevich (2013), academic entrepreneurship can be defined by “any activity that occurs beyond the traditional academic roles of teaching and/or research, carries an element of risk, and leads to financial rewards to individual academic or his/her institution” [30]. Entrepreneurial activities therefore include not only high-level or “harder” activities, such as establishing spin-off or start-up firms and working in incubation parks [31], but also lower-level or “softer” activities, such as consultancy and contract research [32].
Academics’ entrepreneurial activities can stem from individual actions and reactions to social demands. The principles of social exchange theory, proposed by Blau (1968),Thibaut and Kelley (1959), and Emerson (1976), would suggest that individual actions are contingent on perceived rewards from others [33,34,35]. From a personal perspective, when a person perceives value or is rewarded, he or she is to perform the action as a form of reciprocity. From the lens of social exchange theory, academics are willing to spend a substantial amount of time and effort in social activities with the hope that they will develop high-quality relationships with other external individuals. Engaging in these social activities can be both challenging and rewarding, and these are the primary reasons why many academics pursue entrepreneurial engagement. The actions undertaken are based upon expected extrinsic rewards such as money, products, help, and obedience and intrinsic rewards such as love, interests, social recognition, or a mix of these two. From a social perspective, academic organizations’ attributes and incentives serve as the conditions of social exchange as well as reinforce or hinder the underlying social interaction process. Considering country-specific contexts, these reinforcements or hindrances may manifest differently in different countries.
In both Canada and China, academics are embedded in a context that emphasizes technology transfer; however, there are still importance institutional contexts that induce differences. For example, some studies would suggest that, in countries where higher education is driven more by market power, and knowledge can generate higher market value, academics are more likely to engage [36]. Similarly, in countries where policies and funding would emphasize and support academic entrepreneurship, faculty members would be more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Considering how markets influence the Canadian higher-education systems [22] and how funding organizations support knowledge transfer [26], we formulate the following hypothesis to be tested with our results:
Hypothesis 1.
The proportion of academics who report being engaged in entrepreneurial activities is higher in Canada than in China.
There are many factors influencing academic entrepreneurship. Studies group factors along three categories: individual, organizational, and environmental (national and regional) [37]. Individual factors include research orientations. Previous studies have suggested that there is a positive relationship between research productivity and research collaborations [38], and collaborations can serve as a proxy to explain the role of human capital in knowledge production. Academics do not, however, form a monolithic group, and individuals have the autonomy to choose and orient their work according to the tradeoffs between efforts and potential rewards. University scientists’ research orientation for curiosity-driven research versus applied and commercially relevant research is nonetheless influenced by the investment and consumption values of conducting research over the tangible rewards. The empirical literature has found that academics who are engaged in user-inspired research are more likely to be involved in entrepreneurial activities. For instance, Calderini, Franzoni, and Vezzulli (2007) found that scientists working on applied or very-applied/target research are significantly more likely to submit patent applications than those working on “very basic/fundamental” research [39]. It is argued that patenting is pursued due to benefits including monetary payoffs, developing relationships with firms, accessing equipment, or exploiting other research-related opportunities. Studies suggest, however, that academics react differently to rewards and that the incentives are higher when the feedback from applied research is richer. Based upon the aforementioned literature, we can formulate the two following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a.
Academics who emphasize theoretically oriented research are less likely to be involved in entrepreneurial activities.
Hypothesis 2b. 
Academics who emphasize practically oriented, commercially oriented, or socially oriented research are more likely to be involved in entrepreneurial activities.
Academics’ entrepreneurial engagement is also contingent on the institutional/organizational environment. Among the institutional factors that play a role in explaining entrepreneurial engagement, one can cite the physical presence of an unit, such as a technology transfer office (TTO), as well as the resources such as industry funding for academic research [40,41,42]. Few studies have examined the influence of universities’ entrepreneurial expectations towards their faculty members. Contrary to teaching and research, societal engagement is relatively new and lacks legitimacy and institutional support in a number of institutions [43]. A survey of 272 scientists from Chinese universities revealed that scientists’ motivational factors, such as commercialization attitude and perceived behavior control, significantly influence their intention to engage in commercialization activities [44]. The organizational context can facilitate or impede academic entrepreneurship; the organizational rewards and incentives provided through management interventions and support can generate positive entrepreneurial outputs [45]. Thus, it is reasonable to speculate that academics who are working in universities where there is a strong emphasis on high expectations regarding entrepreneurship [46] will have a high probability to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Hence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3.
Academics who perceive high university expectations regarding entrepreneurship are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
While most of the prior research focuses on academics’ career characteristics and research productivity, this study will fill a gap by examining relationships between academics’ research orientation, universities’ perceived expectations, and entrepreneurial activities across diverse higher-education systems.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Data

To test our hypotheses, we drew upon two separate national datasets from Canada and China, both based on the 2017–18 Academic Profession in the Knowledge-based Society (APIKS) international survey questionnaire, to answer the research questions. The international questionnaire included questions concerning academics’ career and professional situations, general work situations, and activities including parts of teaching, research, and involvement in entrepreneurial activities as well as questions for academics in their formative career stages and personal background information. The 2017–2018 APIKS project is a collegial consortium of national research teams administering a common survey that provides essential data on the changing academic profession in the shifting context associated with the knowledge economy/society. The 2017–18 APIKS global survey included 22 higher-education systems in total. It was the first time that both Canada and China were involved in this international survey and had a set of same questions that were asked to respondents from participating countries to provide the basis for cross-country comparison. The study specifically relies on questions regarding academics’ experience on entrepreneurial engagement, academics’ demographics, career trajectory characteristics, research productivity, research orientation, perceived university entrepreneurial expectations, and disciplinary affiliations. We detail these variables in the next section.
Table 1 presents the original sample size, response rate, number of institutions, and final sample size for analysis for each country. In Canada, the targeted population was the regular and full-time professors working in Canadian universities. Researchers contacted all the 68 publicly funded universities and asked them to disseminate the survey to their regular professors (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors); 64 institutions representing each of the nation’s 10 provinces disseminated the survey to 45,437 academics, 31,728 of whom were later determined to be eligible. A total of 2968 surveys were completed in their entirety for a valid response rate of 9.35%. The chi-square goodness-of-fit testing was conducted to ensure the sample representativeness of the broader population of professors in terms of academic rank, disciplines, and gender. As for China, the targeted population was the regular and full-time faculty members working in public four-year universities. Following a strict stratified sampling technique, the sample covers a wide range of geographical areas (i.e., east, central, and west regions) since we are dealing with a geographically dispersed population. Then, we selected the stratified variable (university’s quality type) to divide universities into different quality types. The sample covers 120 randomly selected four-year public universities (including 40 research universities and 80 other regular four-year universities) located in 22 provinces, and we collected responses from randomly selected faculty members in each sampled university. Given that the required sample size mainly depends on two key factors, namely the degree of accuracy and the variation in a population, according to our calculation, we can be 95% confident that the results in the population will be the same as in the sample, plus or minus the sampling error of 2% in a sample of at least 2500 cases. Thus, the nationally representative survey data were, collected from 2632 full-time respondents with a response rate of 43.46%. To make sure that the sample for this study would be comparable across countries, we filtered and excluded academics who were auxiliary staff or who responded “other” to the questions regarding academic ranks, disciplines, or gender. After these exclusions, the final sample size for descriptive analyses was 2735 for Canada and 2501 for China.

3.2. Methodology and Variables

This study aims to answer two main research questions. To answer the first question, we relied on descriptive statistics. The questionnaire listed 15 types of entrepreneurial activities grouped according to whether they were research-based or teaching-based. Participants ticked the box if they had participated in such activities in the past three years. We will therefore present the proportion of Canadian and Chinese academics who reported being involved in each type of activity and then show the calculation of the proportion that is involved in at least one research-based or teaching-based activity.
To answer the second question, we employed logistic regression models since it is the most popular regression technique available for modelling dichotomous dependent variables [47]. In this study, academic entrepreneurial engagement takes the form of two dependent variables. The two dependent variables are dichotomous variables indicating whether an academic was engaged in any of the listed research-based entrepreneurial activities (DV1) or teaching-based entrepreneurial activities (DV2) in the past three academic years. In our model, the first set of independent variables are dummy variables based on Likert-scale variables representing to what extent academics characterize their research as theoretically oriented (IV1), practically oriented (IV2), commercially oriented (IV3), and socially oriented (IV4). The last independent variable of interest (IV5) is a continuous variable based on the mean of six items related to universities’ expectations (see Table 2 below). We can outline our logistic model as
log p i 1 − p i = β 0 + β 1 × O r i e n t a t i o n i + β 2 × E x p e c t a t i o n i + β 3 × C o n t r o l i
where β 0 is an intercept indicating the average probability of the engaging of an individual i after controlling for all independent variables. The vector β 1 × O r i e n t a t i o n i   represents the variables associated with the academics’ individual research orientations. The vector β 2 × E x p e c t a t i o n i represents the academics’ perceived university entrepreneurial expectations. These two variables are key independent variables. Lastly, β 3 × C o n t r o l i is a vector of control variables.
In addition to those variables and in line with the analytical framework developed by Perkmann et al. (2013) [49], the control variables used in this study were divided into five main categories: (a) demographic characteristics (gender, and age); (b) career trajectory (years of working experience in current university); (c) the academic rank variables defined as the academic rank and academic leadership experience; (d) research productivity (research preference, the number of articles published in academic journals); and (e) whether the scientific discipline affiliation is a hard or soft discipline. The description of the variables included in the regression and their categories is presented in Table 2.

4. Empirical Results

In line with our two research questions, this section first describes the types of entrepreneurial activities undertaken by Canadian and Chinese academics and then examines how academics’ entrepreneurial engagement is influenced by their research orientation and perceptions of their university’s expectation.

4.1. Description of Academic Entrepreneurial Activities in Canada and China

In this study, we describe both the overall participation in entrepreneurial activities and participation in specific types of activities. These 15 activities are intended to cover the different aspects of faculty external engagement. In Table 3, we identify nine specific types of research-based and six specific types of teaching-based entrepreneurial activities, and we indicate the proportion of academics in Canada and in China who reported having undertaken those types of activities. It is worth noting that academics can undertake more than one form/channel of entrepreneurial engagement simultaneously.
Overall, more than 50% of academics in Canada and China were involved in both research-based and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities in the past three years. When we compare both countries, we note that a greater proportion of Canadian academics undertake teaching-based (70.13% in Canada, 58.7% in China, t-test = 0.036, p < 0.001) and research-based entrepreneurial activities than their Chinese counterparts (62.3% in Canada and 58.7% in China, t-test = 0.114, p < 0.001). It corroborates Hypothesis 1 in the sense that the proportion of academics who report being involved in entrepreneurial activities is higher in Canada than in China. This finding reflects that, although the “third mission” is not imposed as a national mandate for universities, this mission has been accepted and punt into action, suggesting that higher-education systems in both countries are developing concrete cooperation relationships with society’s needs.
The dominance of academics’ engagement in teaching-related in comparison to research-related entrepreneurial activities could be partially explained by public universities in Canada having an important teaching mandate and academics’ reporting heavy teaching workloads [50,51]. In terms of research-based activities, three possible explanations may help to understand the relatively high levels of academic entrepreneurial engagement at Canadian universities. First, although many of the earliest Canadian universities were elite institutions and detached from broader society, they evolved into the research-intensive universities, of which many have strong medical schools. Those schools are part of the public hospital system where medical professionals regularly partner with university researchers [52]. Second, public universities that were established in the early to mid-20th century, particularly those in the “prairie” or Western provinces, were modeled after the American land-grant model, where one central university with several campuses would service disparate populations [53]. These universities had an explicit mandate for community extensions, supporting the improvement of agriculture and industry in their surrounding communities. Third, it is increasingly common for granting institutions to have a specific fund available for “partnership” grants. To obtain those grants, university professors must collaborate with external organizations to conduct research that is directly applicable to society [22,54]. Comparing the types of research-based activities in which academics are involved, we note that a greater proportion of them participate in “softer” entrepreneurship activities (such as joint research and publications, evaluation, contract research, and consultancy) than in heavier linkages with industry (such as patenting and licensing, creating of spin-off/start-up company, the use of infrastructure, testing and constructing prototypes, working in a research laboratory, and a science incubator organization or a science park). This difference could be partly explained by the structure of Canada’s economy. Since 2008, businesses’ R&D investments and R&D personnel declined [24], which would suggest that the economic environment is less favorable for professors to participate in large-scale, high-level entrepreneurial activities.
Compared to their Canadian counterparts, a greater proportion of Chinese academics is involved in contract research as well as patenting and licensing. This may be due to several reasons. First, during the last few years, policymakers at national, regional, and local levels in China have recognized that most of the scientific research results in universities are disseminated in the form of scholarly articles and research reports; the conversion rate of scientific results into products is not high [37,55]. Consequently, some universities aim at stimulating technology transfers and converting scientific outcomes to the market by rewarding the creation of products and service. Patenting and licensing and contract research have become two typical activities that are used to evaluate academics’ research performance in faculty evaluation. Differences between countries could also be linked to academics’ privilege and institutional ownership. In China, academics’ technology transfer outputs, to a large extent, belong to university properties.
When we analyze teaching-based entrepreneurial engagement, we note that the most prevalent types include public lectures and speeches, volunteer-based work/consultancy in an honorary capacity, supervision of student internships, and/or student work placements. Curriculum development for external agencies and executives, contract tailor-made programs, and courses prove to be the least popular. It is striking that Canadian academics are twice as likely to give public lectures and speeches than their colleagues in China (54% in Canada, 24.23% in China, t-test = 0.298, p < 0.001), while at the same time, Canadian academics make fewer contracts, tailor-made programs, and courses. These results suggest that one important similarity in both countries lies in the non-commercial nature of the teaching-based engagement, which may be due to stronger intrinsic rewards perceived by academics to gain social reputation and recognition. For instance, Canadian professors appear to be more active in disseminating their work due to a general pressure for “knowledge mobilization”, often used as part of the accountability measures [56]. These results also fit well within the historic purpose of many Canadian universities to serve regional development. Diversity across countries can also be explained by the market and university bureaucratic controls. Chinese academics are much more involved in all student-supervision-related activities because such educational involvement in innovative university–industry cooperation has been greatly promoted and embedded in the curriculum of many Chinese universities.

4.2. The Impact of Research Orientation and Universities’ Expectations

The second research question required us to examine the influence of academics’ research orientation and perception of their university’s expectations for their entrepreneurial engagement. Table 4 reports the logistic regression results about how these factors contribute to one’s likelihood of being involved in research-based and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities. We present the results by displaying the odds ratios in Table 4, thus providing a more readable interpretation of regression results. An odds ratio > 1 indicates increased probability of entrepreneurial activities, whereas an odds ratio < 1 indicates a decrease in entrepreneurial involvement. The predicted probabilities are calculated while holding other variables constant. We calculated a pseudo-R-squared for each logistic regression, indicating how each regression compares to a null (intercept only) model. A value closer to 1 indicates that the specified model is better than the intercept only model. Other parameters, including the log-likelihood and the Wald chi-square, are also reported.
Two hypotheses arose from our second research question. Hypothesis 2a predicted that academics who characterize their research as theoretically oriented were less likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities, and Hypothesis 2b predicted that academics who characterize their research as practically, commercially, or socially oriented were more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities. According to our findings, Hypothesis 2a and 2b are partially confirmed because, although academics who emphasize practically, commercially, or socially oriented research are more likely to facilitate the formation of entrepreneurial linkages than academics emphasizing basic and theoretical research, it does not apply to each compared country in the same manner. In China, the odds of engaging in both research-based and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities are higher for academics emphasizing practically, commercially, and socially oriented research, and they are lower for academics emphasizing theoretically oriented research. More specifically, the odds of entrepreneurship are 36% higher for academics who emphasize practically oriented research; 91% higher for academics who emphasize commercially oriented research; and 25% higher for academics who emphasize socially oriented research when holding other things constant. In Canada, the odds of engaging in research-based activities are statistically significantly higher for academics emphasizing practically, commercially, and socially oriented research, but there is no significant relationship between a commercial orientation in research and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities. Those results have several implications. The first implication is that entrepreneurial engagement does not solely result from individual academics’ decisions. Rather, it is closely connected to the interaction between academics’ research area on the one hand and social demands and constraints on the other hand. Academics whose research and expertise areas are closely tied to social applications have more opportunities to be externally engaged, and they tend to receive higher rewards in seeking job opportunities. Moreover, external partnership opportunities occur more often in specific research areas that lend themselves to practically useful, marketable, or socially relevant activities. Another implication is that academics engage in entrepreneurial activities owing to multiple and compatible motivations. Academics’ engagement tends to be motivated by market rewards in countries where higher-education systems remain a large contributor to knowledge production and pull R&D expenditures, such as in Canada and China. One should also note that a commercial research orientation is not related to academics’ teaching-based external activities in Canada possibly because it includes public lectures that are given by a majority of professors, notwithstanding the commercial value of their research [57].
Hypothesis 3 postulated that academics who perceived high expectations regarding entrepreneurship were more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Our findings confirm Hypothesis 3, and we consequently infer that academics’ perceptions of their university’s entrepreneurial expectations seem to matter for the process of entrepreneurial engagement. For instance, Canadian academics who perceive that their university expects them to engage in entrepreneurial activities are 19% and 24% more likely to undertake research-based and teaching-based activities, while in China, academics are 29% more likely to do so for both types of activities. This statistically significant and positive effect can be explained by higher education institutions’ mandate to contribute to knowledge for their society and by the organizational environment they have put in place to foster the intensity and variety of academics’ societal engagement. Such environments include coordinating units, funding research that may be beneficial for external partners or meet community needs, as well as establishing policies rewarding academics’ engagement [58]. It is very likely that universities’ priorities and degree of funding levels devoted to creating a more entrepreneurial supportive environment may encourage academics’ entrepreneurial activities. For example, our results are in line with our observation that China’s investments in technology and innovation will keep growing, and connecting university/research with the business and industry sector will be enhanced through further reforms and improvements in scientific project operations [59]. Therefore, developing the entrepreneurial ecology has become of great importance to universities and faculties’ leadership and management. In Canada, all universities have included the third mission in their institutional documents and developed technology transfer offices [60], yet most of the funding for these activities is granted through competitive mechanisms or direct relationships with industries.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The objective of this study was to explore and compare academic entrepreneurial engagement in Canada and China. We formulated two research questions: one related to the types of entrepreneurial activities undertaken by academics and one related to the factors influencing academics’ entrepreneurial engagement. We then formulated three hypotheses that we finally tested.
First, based on descriptive statistics, our study found that the proportion of academics who report being involved in at least one teaching-based on research-based entrepreneurial activities is higher in Canada than in China. With regards to the type of activities, academics in Canada are more frequently involved in “softer” research-based activities such as consulting, joint research, and publication and less frequently involved in more intensive activities such as the creation of spin-off companies, patenting, and licensing. The literature would, however, suggest that the type of activities performed depend on academics’ discipline. Chinese academics also have a substantially higher percentage of engagement in contract research, patenting, and licensing. They are more actively involved in student-supervision-related teaching-based activities jointly with external partners.
Second, relying on logistic regressions, we also found that Chinese academics who emphasized practically, commercially, or socially oriented research are more likely to engage in teaching-based and research-based entrepreneurial activities, which are results that are similar for Canada apart from the non-significant relationship between commercially oriented research and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities. This finding is not surprising, but it confirms that academics who perceive a commercial or social value to their research will be more likely to participate in activities that will convert their research into innovations to the benefit of society [61]. Entrepreneurial engagement is more likely to be found in academics who have developed ties outside of the university and whose research is linked to the public or private sectors where the synergy effect exists. Our study provides empirical evidence highlighting how academics’ accumulated research resources and skills are linked to external partners. Entrepreneurial activities can take place when the researchers’ research orientation matches the skills and competencies necessary to carry out more valuable social activities. Our empirical results corroborate the existing social exchange theory and show that it applies to the academic entrepreneurship engagement setting. Academics apply time and energy to establish entrepreneurial or social links because the pursuits of external partnerships are rewarded with valuable returns. We speculate that academics conducting practically and commercially oriented research have higher entrepreneurial engagement due to the increased likelihood of receiving rewards such as revenues. Similarly, socially oriented academics will benefit from extrinsic or even intrinsic rewards that deliver intangible returns. It is also interesting to note that there is also a connection between research orientation and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities. This result supports a conception of academic work that links the advancement of knowledge, the transmission of knowledge, and the mobilization of knowledge. Thus, even if teaching and research are two distinct activities, if professors’ research is oriented towards the needs of industry and society, their teaching activities could have a similar orientation, and they could also be better able to carry out consultancy projects, give public lectures, or encourage students to become actively involved in the private sector [62]. Our findings also reflect the traditionally important contribution of the higher education sector to Canada’s research and innovation system and how it connects to teaching, research, and service [24]. Third, logistic regressions confirmed that academics who perceived that their institution expected them to engage in entrepreneurial activities were more likely to do so. We infer that faculty members’ individual behavior and performing social practices are nested within universities’ organizational expectations towards entrepreneurship. Social exchange theory rests on the core assumption that human interactions aim at gaining maximum profit with minimal cost [33,34,35]. Findings suggest that academics are more likely to engage in external activities if they perceive that their institution—as a mediator of policy requirements—will reward those activities (maximizing profits) but also that those trade-offs are mediated by disciplinary norms [63]. Compliance will be triggered to some extent once institutions’ support and incentives are perceived across both developed and developing nations. Contexts of the higher-education system appear to reinforce the social involvement and contribution of academics. For example, Canada is a developed and industrialized country where research-intensive universities contribute to the country’s R&D in an important manner [24]. It fits well with the historic purpose of many Canadian universities as important actors to foster regional development, the inclusion of the third mission in universities’ official documents, as well as research councils’ requirements regarding research’s external impact and the participation of academics to public debates [56,57,60,64,65]. The Chinese case can be explained from a different perspective. As a developing and industrialized country with a huge population and consumer market, Chinese academics may give higher priority to establishing social relationships through forms of commercialization in accordance with the stronger national call to accelerate knowledge transfer and develop an innovation-oriented nation. Universities operate according to these academy, bureaucratic, and market logics together [66]. Dependency on the state for resources in China may restrict Chinese academics’ motivation to engage, but the Chinese government can elaborate the use of public- and market-related technology transfer policies, capacity building, and entrepreneurial education to motivate higher level of entrepreneurial engagement that is essential for sustainable development.
As the missions of the academic profession become multifold, this study empirically examined how the relatively newer (and less explored) third mission connects to the two major ones, namely teaching and research. Moreover, as governments around the world develop various policies to encourage productive technology transfer, applications in the knowledge-based society, and responses to the SDGs, this study also provides some insights to policymakers and institutional leaders. First, since the academic profession represents a heterogeneous group in terms of research orientations, available opportunities, innovative ideas, or forms of entrepreneurial engagement, national and institutional incentives should be tailored to academics’ research orientation and, of course, disciplinary area [58]. Policies might increase knowledge transfer in a more efficient manner if, on the one hand, it offered academics who are already “close to the market” more sustained support in order to move them from “softer” to “heavier” activities and that, on the other hand, it offered more awareness workshops for professors who have a more theoretical research orientation in order to explore, with them, how their studies might connect to entrepreneurial activities. Our findings also point out to the perception of institutional expectations towards entrepreneurship. Institutional leaders wishing to reinforce knowledge and technology transfer through societal interactions could do so by formalizing expectations in official documents and disseminating the institutional intention through support structures and accountability measures [67].
Bearing in mind that academic entrepreneurship takes many forms that are not mutually exclusive, this study has limitations that future studies could circumvent. One limitation is related to the response rate and representativeness of the samples. If almost half of the survey Chinese academics answered the survey, this is less than 10% of their Canadian counterparts who did so. This discrepancy should urge the reader to be cautious. Another major limitation of the 2017–18 APIKS data is that academics’ entrepreneurial engagement could only be measured by participants’ indication of whether they had participated or not in various types of activities. If we consider that one public conference in three years should represent a different level of engagement than creating a spin-off company, it is crucial that a future study ask academics for the intensity of their engagement. Future study should also question the (commercial and non-commercial) outcomes and impacts associated with external activities. This could provide the basis for an interesting study comparing tradeoffs and costs and benefits of entrepreneurial activities to academics, their institution, and the government. Moreover, while the analyses presented in the regression models demonstrated that research orientation and perceived universities’ expectations contributed to academics’ entrepreneurial engagement, complex interactions and interplays between factors could not be taken into account. Future studies should further explore these interactions and potential pathways of how organizational and institutional factors foster or hamper the effect of individual characteristics. Further research could even specifically test the possible mediation or moderating effects of individual, organizational, or institutional characteristics. This study nonetheless sheds additional light on the contribution of the academic labor force to the development of knowledge societies and economies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.Y., H.G. and O.B.-C.; methodology, L.Y.; formal analysis, L.Y., H.G., O.B.-C., S.M.N.K. and G.K.S.; investigation, H.G. and O.B.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Y., H.G., O.B.-C., S.M.N.K. and G.K.S.; writing—review and editing, L.Y., H.G., O.B.-C., S.M.N.K. and G.K.S.; funding acquisition, L.Y., H.G. and O.B.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71904055), the Double First-Class Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences from Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Think Tank and Social Services Project), and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant No. 435-2019-0463).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from the Canada and China research teams in the APIKS survey and are available from the authors with the permission of the Canada and China research teams.

Acknowledgments

We thank the APIKS international survey organizers, the Canada and China APIKS research team members, and anonymous reviewers for this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Teichler, U.; Arimoto, A.; Cummings, W.K. Introduction. In The Changing Academic Profession: Major Findings of a Comparative Survey; Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., Cummings, W.K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Henry, E. From knowledge flows to the Triple Helix: The Transformation of Academic-industry Relations in the USA. Ind. High. Educ. 1996, 10, 337–342. [Google Scholar]
  3. Slaughter, S.; Rhoades, G. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  4. Samsom, K.J.; Gurdon, M.A. University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation 1993, 13, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, M.; Cai, J.; Munir, H. Academic entrepreneurship in China: Individual human capital and institutional context in higher education organisations. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2022, 30, 134–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Audretsch, D.B. From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. J. Technol. Transf. 2014, 39, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Feldman, M.P.; Desrochers, P. Truth for Its Own Sake: Academic Culture and Technology Transfer at Johns Hopkins University. Minerva 2004, 42, 105–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Geuna, A.; Nesta, L.J.J. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Res. Policy 2006, 35, 790–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mowery, D.C.; Sampat, B.N. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University? Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 30, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Stevens, A.J. The Enactment of Bayh–Dole. J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 29, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. United Nations. The Higher Education Sustainability Initiative Discusses Integrating the Sustainable Development Goals into Higher Education. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/news/higher-education-sustainability-initiative-discusses-integrating-sustainable-development-goals (accessed on 31 October 2022).
  12. Apostolopoulos, N.; Al-Dajani, H.; Holt, D.; Jones, P.; Newbery, R. Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2018; Volume 8, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kościelniak, C.; Roemer, R. Sustainable Development as a Part of the "Third Mission" of the Universities". Saf. Technog. Environ. 2013, 4, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  14. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 2022–2023 Departmental Plan; Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/dp/2022-2023/departmental_plan-plan-ministeriel-2022-23-eng.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  15. Universities Canada. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.univcan.ca/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 31 October 2022).
  16. Purcell, W.M.; Henriksen, H.; Spengler, J.D. Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 1343–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Blasco, N.; Brusca, I.; Labrador, M. Drivers for Universities’ Contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals: An Analysis of Spanish Public Universities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stark, J. The Wisconsin Idea: The University’s Service to the State. In Wisconsin Legislature Joint Committee on Legislative Organization; Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau: Madison, WI, USA, 1995; pp. 2–179. [Google Scholar]
  19. Altbach, P.G. The Past, Present, and Future of the Research University. In The Road to Academic Excellence; Salmi, J., Ed.; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 11–32. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marginson, S. Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian Model. High. Educ. 2011, 61, 587–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sam, C.; van der Sijde, P. Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. High. Educ. 2014, 68, 891–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sá, C.M.; Litwin, J. University-industry research collaborations in Canada: The role of federal policy instruments. Sci. Public Policy 2011, 38, 425–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Carvalho, T.; Santiago, R. Professionalism, Managerialism and Reform in Higher Education and the Health Services; Palgrave Macmillan London: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  24. Council of Canadian Academies. Competing in a Global Innovation Economy: The Current State of R&D in Canada; Council of Canadian Academies: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018; Available online: https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Competing_in_a_Global_Innovation_Economy_FullReport_EN.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  25. Metcalfe, A.S. Revisiting Academic Capitalism in Canada: No Longer the Exception. J. High. Educ. 2010, 81, 489–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gopaul, B.; Jones, G.A.; Weinrib, J.; Metcalfe, A.; Fisher, D.; Gingras, Y.; Rubenson, K. The Academic Profession in Canada: Perceptions of Canadian University Faculty about Research and Teaching. Can. J. High. Educ. 2016, 46, 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. A Document on Promoting High-Quality and Upgraded Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2018-09/26/content_5325522.htm (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  28. Yi, G. The Evolving Process, Problems and Countermeasures of Academic Entrepreneurship: Based on the 1985–2016 university academic entrepreneurship policy text analysis. Res. Educ. Dev. 2017, 37, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borkoski, C.; Prosser, S.K. Developing Faculty Identity as a Community Engaged Scholar: An Unexamined Barrier to Promoting the Public Mission. In Re-Envisioning Higher Education’s Public Mission: Global Perspectives; Papadimitriou, A., Boboc, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 77–95. [Google Scholar]
  30. Abreu, M.; Grinevich, V. The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 408–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Klofsten, M.; Scheele, J. Academic entrepreneurship: University spin-offs and wealth creation. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2009, 30, 494–496. [Google Scholar]
  32. Philpott, K.; Dooley, L.; O’Reilly, C.; Lupton, G. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 2011, 31, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Blau, P. Social exchange. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences; MacMillan Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1968; Volume 7, pp. 452–457. [Google Scholar]
  34. Thibaut, J.W.; Kelley, H.H. The Social Psychology of Groups; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  35. Emerson, R.M. Social Exchange Theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1976, 2, 335–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Van de Burgwal, L.H.M.; Dias, A.S.M.; Claassen, E. Incentives for knowledge valorisation: A European benchmark. J. Technol. Transf. 2019, 44, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ziyu, L.; Lixia, Z. Influencing Factors of Academic Entrepreneurship-Based Knowledge Mapping: A Comparative Analysis of Chinese and International Literature. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2021, 2021, 6187564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abramo, G.; D’Angelo, A.C.; Murgia, G. The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 1016–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Calderini, M.; Franzoni, C.; Vezzulli, A. If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Friedman, J.; Silberman, J. University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? J. Technol. Transf. 2003, 28, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gregory, D.G.; Lovitts, B.E. Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study. Contemp. Sociol. 2003, 32, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Siegel, D.; Waldman, D.; Link, A. Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study. Res. Policy 1999, 32, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Karlsson, T.; Wigren, C. Start-ups among university employees: The influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital. J. Technol. Transf. 2012, 37, (3), 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, M.; Cai, J.; Soetanto, D.; Guo, Y. Why do academic scientists participate in academic entrepreneurship? An empirical investigation of department context and the antecedents of entrepreneurial behavior. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Urban, B.; Gamata, S. Academic enrepreneurship and organisational support factors. South Afr. J. High. Educ. 2020, 34, 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Clark, B. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kleinbaum, D.G.; Kupper, L.L.; Nizam, A.; Muller, K.E. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods; Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  48. Simpson, A. The surprising persistence of Biglan’s classification scheme. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1520–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Perkmann, M.; Tartari, V.; McKelvey, M.; Autio, E.; Brostrom, A.; D’Este, P.; Fini, R.; Geuna, A.; Grimaldi, R.; Hughes, A.; et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 423–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jones, G. Decentralization, Unionization and the evolution of the academic career pathways. In Professorial Pathways: Academic Careers in a Global Perspective; Finkelstein, M., Jones, G., Eds.; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2019; pp. 244–264. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kouritzin, S. Extent and Consequences of Faculty Members’ Workload Creep in Three Canadian Faculties of Education. Can. J. Educ. 2019, 42, 1092–1120. [Google Scholar]
  52. Backman, C.; Vanderloo, S.; Forster, A.J. Measuring and improving quality in university hospitals in Canada: The Collaborative for Excellence in Healthcare Quality. Health Policy 2016, 120, 982–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Jones, G.A.; Weinrib, J.; Gopaul, B.; Metcalfe, A.S.; Rubenson, K. Teaching, Research, and the Canadian Professoriate; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  54. Veletanlić, E.; Sá, C. Government programs for university–industry partnerships: Logics, design, and implications for academic science. Res. Eval. 2018, 28, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liang, Q.; Qiu, Y.; Huang, Z. The Function of Evaluation of Science and Technology to Promote the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements in China. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2018, 7, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  56. Cain, K.S.; Shore, K.; Weston, C.; Sanders, C.B. Knowledge Mobilization as a Tool of Institutional Governance: Exploring Academics’ Perceptions of “Going Public”. Can. J. High. Educ. 2018, 48, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Besley, J.C.; Newman, T.P.; Dudo, A.; Tiffany, L.A. Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Underst. Sci. 2020, 29, 855–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Horta, H.; Santos, J.M. Organisational factors and academic research agendas: An analysis of academics in the social sciences. Stud. High. Educ. 2020, 45, 2382–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. National Development and Reform Commission. Suggestions on Issuing The 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Run Objectives Through the Year 2035. Available online: https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fggz/fgdj/zydj/202011/t20201130_1251646.html?code=&state=123 (accessed on 11 December 2022).
  60. Fitzgerald, C.; Cunningham, J.A. Inside the university technology transfer office: Mission statement analysis. J. Technol. Transf. 2016, 41, 1235–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. D’Este, P.; Perkmann, M. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J. Technol. Transf. 2011, 36, 316–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Moore, T.L.; Ward, K. Institutionalizing Faculty Engagement through Research, Teaching, and Service at Research Universities. Mich. J. Community Serv.-Learn. 2010, 17, 44–58. [Google Scholar]
  63. Abes, E.S.; Jackson, G.; Jones, S.R. Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning. Mich. J. Community Serv. Learn. 2002, 9, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  64. Salazar, M.; Holbrook, A. Canadian Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: The Product of Regional Networking? Reg. Stud. 2007, 41, 1129–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tamtik, M. Movers and shakers of Canadian innovation policy—Recognizing the influence of university vice-presidents as policy advocates. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2018, 24, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Crow, M.; Whitman, K.; Anderson, D. Rethinking Academic Entrepreneurship: University Governance and the Emergence of the Academic Enterprise. Public Adm. Rev. 2019, 80, 511–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Etzkowitz, H. Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2013, 52, 486–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the Samples in Canada and in China.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Samples in Canada and in China.
SurveyCanadaChina
Survey sample29682632
Response rate9.35%43.46%
Number of institutions64120
Final sample size for analysis27352501
Table
Table 2. Description of the variables included in the regression.
Table 2. Description of the variables included in the regression.
CategoryVariableDescription and Scale
Dependent variablesResearch-based AE activities (DV1)Dummy variable, whether the respondent has engaged in research-based external activities; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise.
Teaching-based AE activities (DV2)Dummy variable, whether the respondent has engaged in teaching-based external activities; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise.
Research Orientation:
Basic/theoretically oriented (IV1)		Dummy variable, using 5-point Likert scale to measure the degree of emphasis of academics’ primary research on basic/theoretically oriented research; 1 = 4 and 5 in the Likert scale, 0 = Otherwise.
Key independent variablesResearch Orientation:
Applied/practically oriented (IV2)		Dummy variable, using 5-point Likert scale to measure the degree of emphasis of academics’ primary research on applied/practically oriented research; 1 = 4 and 5 in the Likert scale, 0 = Otherwise.
Research Orientation:
Commercially oriented (IV3)		Dummy variable, using 5-point Likert scale to measure the degree of emphasis of academics’ primary research on commercially oriented research/intended for technology transfer; 1 = 4 and 5 in the Likert scale, 0 = Otherwise.
Research Orientation:
Socially oriented (IV4)		Dummy variable, using 5-point Likert scale to measure the degree of emphasis of academics’ primary research on socially oriented research/intended for the betterment of society; 1 = 4 and 5 in the Likert scale, 0 = Otherwise.
University Entrepreneurial Expectations
(IV5)		Continuous, mean of six items: perceived university expectation of raising substantial amount of external funding, conducting socially relevant or applied (possibly commercially oriented) research, complying to guidelines for research set by research funders, restricting public publication in tune with research funder’s expectations, and being active in carrying the research results beyond typical publications.
Control variablesFemaleDummy variable, whether the respondent is female; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise.
AgeContinuous, age of the respondent.
Working ExperienceContinuous, years of working in current university
Associate ProfessorDummy variable, whether the respondent is an associate professor; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise
ProfessorDummy variable, whether the respondent is a professor; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise
Academic LeadershipDummy variable, whether the respondent has academic leadership experience in the current academic year; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise.
Research PreferenceDummy variable, whether the respondent has a preference for research over teaching; 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise.
Number of PublicationsContinuous, the numbers of published articles in academic journals in the past three years.
Hard Discipline *Dummy variable, whether the respondent is in hard disciplines (Life sciences/Physical sciences, mathematics/Chemistry/Computer sciences/Engineering manufacturing and construction, architecture/Agriculture, forestry/Medical sciences, health related sciences); 1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise.
* Note: Discipline classification according to Simpson (2017) [48]
Table
Table 3. Proportion (%) of Canadian and Chinese academics who reported involved in research-based and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities.
Table 3. Proportion (%) of Canadian and Chinese academics who reported involved in research-based and teaching-based entrepreneurial activities.
Academic Entrepreneurial ActivitiesCanada (N = 2735)China (N = 2501)t-Test
N%N%
Research-based activities170462.30146858.700.036 ***
Patenting and licensing1234.5060824.31−0.198 ***
Creating of spin-off/start-up company983.58973.88−0.003
Joint research and publications120444.0287835.110.089 ***
Evaluation53719.6328811.520.081 ***
Contract research54920.0790136.03−0.160 ***
Consultancy76327.9069927.95−0.001
Use of infrastructure and (technical) equipment1405.121405.60−0.005
Test and construct prototypes1595.811475.88−0.001
Work in a research laboratory, science incubator organization, or a science park1395.081365.44−0.004
Teaching-based activities191870.13146858.700.114 ***
Curriculum development for external agencies2348.562048.160.004
Supervision of student internships and/or student work placements72726.5882633.03−0.064 ***
Joint supervision with industry of bachelor, master, and/or doctoral thesis30411.1258023.19−0.121 ***
Volunteer-based work/consultancy in an honorary capacity89532.721767.040.257 ***
Public lectures and speeches147754.0060624.230.298 ***
Executive, contract, tailor-made programs and courses1344.901566.24−0.013 **
Note: t-tests were conducted to compare the country differences in various forms of academic entrepreneurial engagement. ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Table
Table 4. Logistic regression predicting academics’ entrepreneurial engagement.
Table 4. Logistic regression predicting academics’ entrepreneurial engagement.
Dependent VariableResearch-Based
Activities		Teaching-Based
Activities
Country(1) Canada(2) China(3) Canada(4) China
Theoretically oriented research0.62 ***0.57 ***0.76 ***0.57 ***
(0.07)(0.06)(0.08)(0.06)
Practically oriented research2.11 ***1.36 ***1.61 ***1.36 ***
(0.23)(0.14)(0.18)(0.14)
Commercially oriented research3.09 ***1.91 ***1.251.91 ***
(0.68)(0.25)(0.22)(0.25)
Socially oriented research1.54 ***1.25 **1.33 ***1.25 **
(0.17)(0.13)(0.14)(0.13)
University entrepreneurial expectations1.19 **1.29 ***1.24 **1.29 ***
(0.10)(0.11)(0.10)(0.11)
Intercept0.18 ***0.33 **0.35 **0.33 **
(0.08)(0.16)(0.16)(0.16)
Log likelihood−1265.83−1314.88−1259.91−1314.88
Wald chi-square255.93314.91104.67314.91
Control variablesYesYesYesYes
Observations2171224521712245
Pseudo R20.110.130.040.13
Note: Robust standard error for odds ratios is shown in parentheses. ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, L.; Guo, H.; Bégin-Caouette, O.; Nakano Koga, S.M.; Stephenson, G.K. Academic Entrepreneurial Engagement among Academics in Canada and China: The Impact of Research Orientation and University Expectations. Sustainability 2023, 15, 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010336

AMA Style

Yu L, Guo H, Bégin-Caouette O, Nakano Koga SM, Stephenson GK. Academic Entrepreneurial Engagement among Academics in Canada and China: The Impact of Research Orientation and University Expectations. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010336

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Li, Hui Guo, Olivier Bégin-Caouette, Silvia Mirlene Nakano Koga, and Grace Karram Stephenson. 2023. "Academic Entrepreneurial Engagement among Academics in Canada and China: The Impact of Research Orientation and University Expectations" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010336

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop