Science and Public Policy 40 (2013) pp. 127-139Advance Acces.docx

Science and Public Policy 40 (2013) pp. 127-139
Advance Access published on 22 September 2012
doi:10.1093/scipol/scs074
Integration of academic and
entrepreneurial roles: The case of
nanotechnology research at
Chalmers University of Technology
Hans Fogelberg''* and Mats A, Lundqvist^
'Department of Sociology, University of Gothenburg, Box 720,
SE-405 30 Gothenburg Sweden, and
Department for Research and Development, Region Västra
Gotaland, Box 1091, SE-405 23
Gothenburg Sweden.
^Department of Technology Management and Economics,
Chalmers University of Technology,
SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden; E-mail: [email protected]
* Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
This paper analyzes how researchers in leading roles at a
Swedish research university relate to the
integration of academic and entrepreneurial roles in the field of
nanotechnology. In contrast to
earlier studies that characterize researchers as being either
'critical towards' or 'unfit for' entre-
preneurial activity, this paper argues that researchers can
develop a positive approach towards

entrepreneurship and it discusses how this, in certain situations
and in a specific research area,
can lead to new innovation networks and provide important
input to early development and
commercialization. This is encouraging in view of the current
science and innovation policies of
nations, which promote the entrepreneurial scientist and yet
hesitate to give him or her adequate
control over resources for innovation management processes.
Keywords: Science policy; role integration; actor-network
theory; nanotechnology;
entrepreneurial university.
1. Introduction
A central assumption in knowledge economy discussions
is that actors inside public research universities can be
stimulated to take specific but important direct roles for
economic growth in advanced areas of technology.
Researchers in positions of leadership are seen as a par-
ticularly important group in this development. The aim of
this study is to better understand the integration of aca-
demic and entrepreneurial roles at the level of academic
research group leaders, and to elaborate on the policy
dimensions of this integration.
This issue of integration vs. separation of academic and
entrepreneurial roles is a longstanding and complex topic.
The topic has revolved around a basic conflict between on
the one hand a politics of science that promote increased
productivity and social utility from research, and on the
other hand an academic culture the promotes autonomy
and sufficient space for self-regulation in order to function
well and be productive. The formal and informal arrange-

ments of this complex relationship can be regarded as a
'social contract of science' (Guston 2000) that changes
over time and that display national differences. The devel-
opment of national policies for science, and the subsequent
increase of public funding of national R&D policy systems
were made within a social contract for science that was
based on the relative autonomy of academic research.
The policy system provided financial support and
provided for the autonomy of the academic researchers
under the expectation that their work ultimately will
provide for societal and economic development. This
mode of policy assumed that basic researchers are not
directly active in pursuing technology development and
that they need not take on direct commercial roles
(of course, many researchers did, but the policy did not
attempt to configure them to do so). With the expansion of
© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All
rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
128 • H. Fogelberg and M. A. Lundqvist
national R&D systems, and the increased cost to the
system of the public funding of science, there followed
an increased questioning of the policy of relative
autonomy of research. In parallel, during a period of ex-
pansion, parts of the university system had spread and
become a partly different university system—a 'mass uni-
versity'—performing not only core academic functions but
also many different tasks and roles in their local and
national contexts (cf. the notion of universities as socially
distributed institution (Scott 1997)). Academia had
become more open to different contexts. Both develop-
ments led to a view in research policy that the social

contract of science had changed (or must be changed)
because the contexts of application had started to impact
and justify research work in a different way from before
(Gibbons et al. 1994; Stokes 1997; Ziman 2000). Parts of
the innovation processes that had earlier been considered
to lie outside of the university context were increasingly
associated with academic work, researchers, and research
groups (cf. Etzkowitz 1983; Slaughter and Leslie 1999).
The development of a new set of policies followed,
aiming to actively support this new association. Policies
were implemented in order to both support the contextual
transformation of university research and to preserve the
integrity of academic research. One formulation of this
attempted balancing act was the policy for 'strategic
science', which was developed in several nations (Irvine
and Martin 1989; Stokes 1997), including Sweden, where
in the latter case, it gave rise to new research funding in-
stitutions (Sörlin 2005).
The result of this development and change in policy
orientation towards actively closing the gap between
'science' and 'economy' has become a topic of dispute
among analysts. One camp of analysts has argued that
increased economic contextualization of the university
would by definition undermine the integrity of science
and destroy its basic foundations. Another group, which
was either uninterested in the particular problem of
undermining science or was merely more positive about
the possibilities arising from a greater contextualization
of science within economic development goals, argued
that multiple roles as academic researchers and as technol-
ogy entrepreneurs can be integrated and be beneficial for
advancing both science and economy. Earlier studies,
therefore, have tended to promote either an academic or
an entrepreneurial role, and a separation between two
research communities has emerged. On one side of that

divide, studies of science and science policy have primarily
focused on historical changes in policy doctrine (Elzinga
1980, 1997, 2012), the emergence of new research institu-
tions (Sörlin 2005), and the political regulation and gov-
ernance of the public research system (Sandström 2002;
Benner 2008). On the other side, studies of innovation
have been more concerned with how to develop the new
entrepreneurial role of academic researchers in the most
efficient way (Henrekson and Rosenberg 2001). Studies
of innovation, however informative and interesting, have
focused primarily at the aggregate levels rather than at the
individual level of the academic research group leaders.
Rothaermel et al. (2007) concluded from a comprehensive
overview of the university entrepreneurship literature that
in the most common national contexts investigated in the
literature—the USA, the UK, and Sweden—studies relied
on macro-level analyses, with few explicitly dealing with
the researcher's level and their position in the network or
function in the innovation systems. A closer understand-
ing of the inside of the technical university is needed
(Granberg and Jacobsson 2006) but the polarization of
views of academic and entrepreneurial roles—in combin-
ation with a preference for aggregated analysis—have
together somewhat hindered the search for an understand-
ing of the integration of academic and entrepreneurial
roles in research.
This study seeks to overcome the challenges that stem
from polarized views by relying on an approach that en-
courages a combined study of the 'academic' and the
'entrepreneurial'. The study traces the role of individuals
engaged in two decades of nanotechnology research con-
ducted at Chalmers University of Technology and traces
how they relate to the integration of academic and entre-
preneurial roles. The remainder of this paper is structured

as follows. Section 2 outlines contributions from the
science and innovation studies literature and the issue of
universities and their researchers being 'actors' in a know-
ledge economy, drawing in particular upon concepts that
allow an understanding of the co-production of science
and technology. Section 3 defines the nanotechnology
case study and describes the data and research design.
Sections 4 and 5 provides historical, national and local
university context. Section 6 presents the interviews.
Section 7 discusses the tentative results and summarizes
empirical and theoretical implications for science policy
and the management of university research.
2. University-centred innovation
Some scholars of science have argued that historic changes
in the social contract between science and society (Guston
2000) have led to irreversible transformations inside of
universities (Ziman 2000), including new pressure on re-
searchers to develop practical exploitations of scientific
knowledge. A central aspect of this transformation is
closer interaction between academia, industry, and govern-
ment (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000), which has
affected both the organization and content of university
research activities (Gibbons et al. 1994). University re-
searchers must now engage in a more proactive role
(Clark 1998; Bercovitz and Feldman 2008), which
includes, among other things, adopting a more 'commer-
cial' logic (Etzkowitz 1983; Slaughter and Leslie 1999;
Etzkowitz 2003) and university actors engage in
Integration of academic and entrepreneurial roles in
nanotechnology research • 129

developing intermediary institutions and functions to fa-
cilitate technology transfer to industry.
Others have argued that this image of a demise of trad-
itional roles within the university is exaggerated (Weingart
1997; Shinn 2002), and that the role separation between
academia and industry remains intact, or else that it should
be actively defended (Tuunainen and Knuuttila 2009;
Tuunainen 2005). According to this view, university
research groups and researchers need to be protected
from the intrusions of non-academic considerations that
erode the norms of science and the workings of the open
science model, which, as Nelson (2001) has pointed out,
has an excellent track record historically for supporting
innovation. Elzinga (1980), among others, criticises how
different policy cultures—such as civic, bureaucratic, and
commercial—impact science and lead to an 'epistemic
drift' of research that threatens academic culture and the
norms of open science. It leads to a situation where
'research' and 'innovation' are often mixed up (Elzinga
1997, 2004). The view has emerged that academic
research should be protected from commercial roles to
the greatest extent possible, both for the sake of science
and for its sizeable long-term, albeit less direct, contribu-
tions to innovation and economic development.
Research on 'entrepreneurial universities' has been
central to discussions of the 'appropriate role' of re-
searchers. The concept of the 'entrepreneurial university'
has two linked origins. One is Clark (1998) who analyzed
organizational and cultural transformations inside
universities with respect to the heterogeneous social
groups that make up universities. Clark depicted five
pathways of organizational transformation:
• a strengthened managerial core

• an enhanced developmental periphery
• a diversified funding base
• a stimulated academic heartland (meaning new impetus
to the traditional organizing of research and education)
• a rise of a generally entrepreneurial culture inside the
university
All, except perhaps the first, of these organizational
changes have direct impacts at the individual researcher
level. University-level studies have primarily focused on
the enhanced developmental periphery, mainly looking at
the role of university technology transfer offices (TTOs).
Aspects that pertain to the researcher, such as changes in
academic culture (Philpott et al. 2011), and roles inside the
academic heartland, have only recently started to receive
some attention (Jain et al. 2009).
The formulation of the entrepreneurial university by
Etzkowitz (1983, 1998, 2003) was developed as a way to
explain how changes in the funding and organizing of
research related to the development of the knowledge
economy. He studied the rise of entrepreneurial
universities and entrepreneurial scientists in the USA
(Etzkowitz 1983) and described organizational change at
the level of the research group characterizing it as a
'quasi-firm' (Etzkowitz 1992, 2003). Three decades after
Etzkowitz's (1983) first identification of 'entrepreneurial
science', the existence and desirability of role integration
has become both more broadly accepted and more intently
contested. The view that:
. . . research groups operate as firm-like entities, lacking only
direct profit to make them a company. (Etzkowitz 2003: 111)

The implicit claim of Etzkowitz and his followers that this
development has had more positive effects than negative
ones has been met with some disapproval.
One critic is Tuunainen (2005), whose case study of com-
mercialization of research in the Finnish R&D system tests
Etzkowitz's thesis of research groups as quasi-firms.
Tuunainen finds that increasing demands of commercial
activity inside universities have led to conflicts of interest
and intense boundary work that serves to separate roles
and keep economic activity outside the university context
(Tuunainen 2005). Wald (2007) arrives at similar conclu-
sions in an analysis of the effects of policy to promote what
Gibbons et al. (1994) called 'mode 2 research'. While the
funding patrons in Wald's study supported 'mode 2'
research, the German nanotechnology research groups
did not accept or adopt this mode in practice. Basic and
applied research remained separate, and the expected
linking of the funded research to external contexts was
not a strong feature.
Vestergaard (2007) investigates the possibility of a
'blurred' separation, using the University of Newcastle
Innovation Centre for Nanotechnology as a case study.
Vestergaard argues for developing entrepreneurial roles
at the level of academic departments, but defends the
need to preserve a clear separation of academic and entre-
preneurial roles at the individual level. While individual
researchers can work in either role, he considers the inte-
gration of both roles to be inappropriate or even
illegitimate.
The different positions observed in the literature with
respect to entrepreneurial role of academic researchers
are summarized in Table 1. Only in the 'network model'

of role integration do we see both the research group and
other actors within the university taking proactive roles
towards entrepreneurship.
These studies provide interesting comparisons to the
approach taken by this study. Integration is probably
closest associated with the network model since it represent
changes at many different locations and levels in the uni-
versity. Another way to formulate the ongoing change is
to see it as a 'third' or 'hybrid' position (cf. Gulbrandsen
2005; Kurek et al. 2007) where an entrepreneurial role
involves a complex layering upon a research role
identity, rather than abandoning, and rather than having
a switch-like shift from one role identity to another (Jain
et al. 2009).
Table I. Analytical views on entrepreneurship roles within
university
Integration of entrepreneurship
within research group
No Yes
University support Yes Specialization (TTO) Network model
provided to model (Vestergaard) (this paper)
research group for No Institutional separation Quasi-firm model
commercialization model (Tuunainen) {Etzkowitz,
activities Jain et al.)
In comparison to Wald (2007), integration may reflect
historical differences in the respective national research

and innovation systems. Whereas the German research
system can be regarded as segmented (cf. Heinze and
Kuhlmann 2008), the Swedish system has not developed
as strong an institutional segmentation between basic and
applied research and the research funding system in
Sweden tends to be segmented and based on external
funds. These differences have an impact at the level of
researchers and research groups, where responsiveness to
economic factors is particularly driven by competition for
external research grants. Rosenberg argues that this
economic responsiveness causes American universities to
'endogenize' features of the surrounding economy to a
greater extent than do European universities. The
Swedish system, however, has more similarities to the
U.S. system than to e.g. the German and other European
systems (cf. Rosenberg 2000: Chap. 3). Yet, there remain
important differences between the US and the Swedish
system that should not be underestimated, in particular
regarding the individual incentives for entrepreneurship,
with such incentives found to be almost non-existing in
the Swedish system (Henrekson and Rosenberg 2001;
Goldfarb and Henrekson 2003). Nevertheless, local entre-
preneurial traditions, such as the one accounted for at
Chalmers University of Technology (Clark 1998; Jacob
et al. 2003; Wright et al. 2007; Philpott et al. 2011) might
compensate for the lack of national incentives.
There is also a large literature on the impact of organ-
izations and mechanisms for university technology transfer
(cf. Bozeman 2000; Jensen and Thursby 2001; Siegel et al.
2003, 2007), which has largely focused on issues pertaining
to the development and licensing of intellectual property
rights (IPRs). Jensen and Thursby (2001) found that the
science-based IPRs developed by universities were not
directly useful to external actors but needed longer engage-
ment of researchers in order to become a functional mech-

anism for technology transfer and development. Thus
IPRs create a need for the integration of roles. Bercovitz
and Feldman (2008) studied researchers participation in
university technology transfer activities in the US system
and found that often factors less tangible than technology
transfer institutions and infrastructure were important.
Socialization and norms of research groups with respect
to commercialization were more important than were the
top-down TTO mechanisms implemented by universities
or national research policies. A similar observation in the
Swedish context (e.g. Goktepe-Hultén 2008, 2010) is that
senior researchers' track records and views towards entre-
preneurship influence the norms of local research group
members and how the research group relates to entrepre-
neurial activities.
From this overview it can be concluded that senior re-
searchers or research group leaders can be seen as a
relevant focus, but also that the way in which these
academic researchers can, or should, participate in the
commercial exploitation of research is highly contested
ground. Returning to the divide in views concerning
their proper roles, we caution that the descriptions of
radical transformation of the university, as emphasized
by the first group, may have exaggerated the newness of
new modes of knowledge production. Furthermore, the
argument for bolstering academic autonomy, as
emphasized by the latter group, may be an idealized
notion of academic research that has never existed in
such a pure form. Thus, there remains an opportunity to
further develop a view of role integration.
2.1 A network perspective on role integration
In terms of a methodology to study a contested field, we

need a perspective that helps us analyze how scientific, tech-
nical, and commercial roles are developed inside
universities. The role of researchers within the processes
of innovation can be understood as a building and main-
tenance of network relations between heterogeneous
entities (Latour 1987). Some of these entities belong to
the industrial or commercial realm and are usually seen as
part of the researchers' 'context'. However, during recon-
figuration, where researchers change from a reactive to a
proactive role, the boundaries between content and context
are being renegotiated and adjusted (cf. Callón and Law
1989), and a new type of localized autonomy and negoti-
ation space is created (Law and Callón 1992) within which
researchers can develop their projects, allowing researchers
autonomy to both do basic research and to innovate. The
outcome is a new and different integration of earlier roles.
The establishment of the entrepreneurial university is in this
sense the outcome of the (re)organization and temporary
stabilization of a changing techno-scientific (Latour 1987)
and techno-economic network (Callón 1991; Robinson
et al. 2007). Researchers are thus seen as proactive network-
ing agents who organize distributed resources in a way that
allow them to fulfil both old and new functions and roles.
Such a network-based meaning of role integration can be
studied by tracing:
• First, the formation of a proactive entrepreneurial role,
i.e. how researchers become a networking agent for
developing a technology.
• Second, reconfigurations of the boundary between the

content and context of research, i.e. how they negotiate
the boundary between content and context by develop-
ing 'innovation platforms' and constructing a new in-
tegration of roles.
• Third, the policy support and negotiation space for
role integration, i.e. how they rely upon or construct
a negotiation space (e.g. through policy support from
national agencies and university technology transfer
functions) that allows them to stabilize this new inte-
gration in an effective way.
In essence, a network inspired understanding of role inte-
gration allows for a description of scientists' views on
research and commercialization that may complement an
institutional understanding of roles.
3. Definition of 'nanotechnology' and
research design
It is not self-evident what the study of nanotechnology
means. In contrast to approaching 'nanotechnology' as
an empty signifier (Wullweber 2008), we stress its historic
origins in science policy, advanced material science
research, and industrial development. The term 'nanotech-
nology' may be a new formulation, but the actual network
that has taken on this label is not new. A focus on history
and activities represent what Schummer (2007) calls the
'actual definition' of nanotechnology. The material
culture (cf. Galison 1997) of microelectronics and micro-
technology research laboratories and its extension into
nanoelectronics and nanotechnology are important
historic paths in the development of this field. This
research community and its associated instrumentation
accord with descriptions from historians of science on
the development of nanotechnology in the USA (cf.

Bensuade-Vincent 2001; Choi and Mody 2009). The link
to research in advanced materials lends structure to how
we perceive 'innovation' in nanotechnology. Different
technology fields and industry sectors naturally involve
different innovation logics. However, given that at least a
share of innovation and commercialization activities in
the field of nanotechnology is expected to arise from
within universities and specifically from university
research groups, the innovation policy issues that arise
are associated with the changing roles of researchers.
This paper draws on insights gained from monitoring
science-based commercialization in the area of nanotech-
nology at the campus of Chalmers University of
Technology from the mid-1990s to 2012. The study is
based partly on a larger number of personal contacts
with researchers in leading roles conducted by one of the
authors in his role as an active 'insider' in the entrepre-
neurship development of Chalmers. In addition, nine
semi-structured, two to three hour-long interviews were
conducted in 2005 and 2006 by the other author and
were transcribed in full and analyzed first separately and
then jointly by both authors. The selection of researchers
represents four of five research groups at the university
active in nanotechnology research and key actors
involved in nanotechnology commercialization. They rep-
resent a group of researchers who are highly experienced
and used to expressing research policy issues and to
arguing their explicit meaning in these issues. The risk of
aligning informant statements with respect to the issue dis-
cussed in this paper is therefore considered to be relatively
small. One of the informants was the first investigator in
Sweden to formulate a national research agenda for nano-
technology, another is the leader of the largest nanotech-
nology laboratory in Sweden, and a third has perhaps the

strongest track record in Sweden in managing nanoscience
collaborations between research groups in physics and
biology. All but one of the nine interviewees are research
group leaders; the one not leading a research group has
instead worked as an university innovation manager
involved in successfully pursuing and implementing
early-stage innovation support in the form of 'verification'
grants. The interviews each concentrated on different
themes aimed at generating descriptions of how the re-
searchers view and handle their roles and organize the de-
velopment of new technologies. The approach taken in
interviews was inspired by the actor-network perspective
in the sense that questions avoided preconceived
categories, and aimed to trace the associations made by
researchers when they describe what they do when they
organize and conduct research.
4. The Swedish system
Relative to its gross domestic product Sweden has among
the highest total spending on R&D and funding of the
university sector. Public resources for research since the
1950s have been directed towards the university system
rather than to research institutes (Edqvist 2003: 213).
R&D spending in Sweden (by 2003) divided between
business (73%), universities (23%), and institutes (4%)
(Sandström et al. 2005; Sandén and Sandström 2002).
The public system has been comparably fragmented and
was performed by a number of different research councils.
Beginning in the 1990s there was a financial and institu-
tional reorientation towards the commodification of know-
ledge in the Swedish system, and from the late 1990s there
was also a concentration of research funding institutions
(Jacob et al. 2003: 1557ff.). Several technology research
councils and sectorial research councils were merged in
2000, creating the Swedish Agency for Innovation

Systems (VINNOVA). Several basic science councils were
merged in a new and large national Research Council
(VR). Also, new large research foundations for strategic
research with autonomy from the state were created in
the mid-1990s. The Swedish Foundation for Strategic
Research (SSF) and the Foundation for Strategic
Environmental Research (MISTRA) are relevant for
nanotechnology research.
The Swedish system supports researchers taking specific
roles as regards outreach and innovation. Since 1977, by
law Swedish universities and researchers have been
assigned a specific information role (Högskolelagen) of in-
forming the surrounding society of their research activities
and new findings. From 1996/97 this role was expanded
and formulated as a collaboration role with society with
the aim of increasing the societal relevance of university
research. This role is known as the 'third mission' of
Swedish universities, named so because it was added to
the roles of education and research. It was argued that
universities and researchers should have a greater respon-
sibility for developing links between research and business,
and that government should support this new role
(Riksrevisionsverket 2001 ). From the mid-1990s the
Swedish government also created new structures for tech-
nology transfer. Seven regional technology bridge founda-
tions and 11 university-based holding companies were set
up. Two universities were transformed into foundations
having more autonomy than state universities, Chalmers
University of Technology being one of these. By 2009 a
more narrow and economic interpretation was added to

the third mission by government making explicit the re-
sponsibility of universities to develop utility from research
results.
The Swedish 'teacher's exemption' from 1949 (also
known as the 'professors privilege') gives the rights to in-
ventions to employed academic inventors. By 2012,
Sweden was the only country in EU still maintaining
such a regime. Other European countries, as do the USA
and Japan, have a 'Bayh-Dole' type of licensing regime in
which responsibilities and rights around research commer-
cialization rest with the university as a structure. In order
for Swedish universities to own and develop intellectual
property from research, they have to enter contractual
agreements with their researchers who have come up
with inventions.
The Swedish teacher's exemption has primarily been
practiced through researchers granting their IP ownership
rights to industry collaborators in order to gain access
to finance from industry. Until the mid-1990s it was rare
for researchers themselves to claim ownership over intel-
lectual property. These universities produced not only
knowledgeable people and fundamental scientific know-
ledge but also mission-oriented research and indirectly
enabled technology development for Swedish industry.
The system of research institutes—common elsewhere in
Europe and in the USa—has played a comparably small
role in the Swedish system (Benner and Sandström 2000;
Edqvist 2003). This industry-collaboration research
changed with the globalization of Swedish industry, cor-
porate research arms of increasingly global companies
moved from Sweden or reduced their presence in
longstanding Swedish research collaborations. As a
result, newer generations of researchers had less contact

with industry. Instead some researchers engaged in
spin-off activity together with incubators which started
to emerge from the mid-1990s and onwards. Also, but
to a lesser extent, patenting and licensing became an
option for some researchers at selected Swedish
universities. In total, policy pressures on researchers to
engage in commercialization have increased (Hellström
and Jacob 2005).
5. Chalmers University of Technology
The studied technical university is the second oldest and
second largest technical university in Sweden. Chalmers
University of Technology was founded in 1829 and cur-
rently has about 10,000 students, 1,100 PhD students and
2,500 employees. Chalmers has been closely linked to the
large and R&D intensive industries of the region within
biomedicine (Astra-Zenica), information and communica-
tion technology (Ericsson, SAAB), transportation (Volvo
Corporation, Volvo Cars, Autoliv), and manufacturing
(SKF). The region has one of the highest R&D intensities
per capita in Europe. This context was a major reason why
in 1994, the government chose Chalmers as the only
Swedish technical university to be transformed from a
state university into a foundation.
The entrepreneurial ambitions of the university since it
became private have been multiple. Chalmers co-founded
Sweden's first American style venture capital firm in 1994
(Innovationskapital), which has since invested in new
ventures around Scandinavia. The university co-founded
a regional patent commercialization office in 1996
(Research Patents West) that became the first local
technology transfer organization that attempted to
develop nanotechnology patents. Chalmers School of
Entrepreneurship was started in 1997 with the dual

purpose of developing both high-tech entrepreneurs and
high-tech ventures from technology transfer. Two nano-
technology ventures accounted for in this study (Q-Sense
and Midorion) were started at the school with its MSc
graduates in leading roles. In 1998 the state initiated the
Institute of Micro and Nanotechnology (IMEGO) to be
localized in the campus area, which is now part of the
Research Institutes of Sweden AB. Chalmers started
a seed-financing company in 1998 (Chalmersinvest) and
a business incubator in 1999 (Chalmers Innovation).
The latter has supported the initiation of several
nanotech spin-off firms (Nanofactory, Nanoxis and
Smoltek). Research Patent West was terminated in 2003,
and a subsidy specifically aimed at exploring potentials in
'strategic' intellectual property was created (Chalmers
IPR, Inc). The latter focused specifically on nanopatent
development. Chalmers Institute for Commercial R&D
(Chalmers Tndustriteknik - CIT) had already been
founded in 1984 and has been involved in Chalmers IPR
Inc as well as advising nanoresearchers about innovation
issues.
biosensor system for lab-on-a-chip applications
(Midorion), and carbon nanostructures development for
ICT applications (Smoltek).
5.1 The MC2 Laboratory at Chalmers
Chalmers' MC2 laboratory is the largest Swedish labora-
tory and technological platform for nanotechnology

research and development, claimed at its start in 2000 to
be one of the largest in the academic world. The laboratory
became fully operational in 2001 and hosts about 200
academic and business users. It has about 150 scientific
instruments, originally developed for electronics research,
which now are increasingly used for purposes other than
electronics. There is a broadening towards chemistry and
bio-research, e.g. bio-chips, DNA-chips, and protein chips.
The research focus is on future electronics, photonics, and
micro- and nanosystems. MC2 hosts several advanced
laboratories in these areas: the Applied Quantum Physics
Laboratory, the Quantum Device Physics Laboratory, the
Solid State Electronics Laboratory, the Microwave
Electronics Laboratory, the Photonics Laboratory, and
the Process Laboratory, which has an area of 1,240 m .̂
Each laboratory host several research groups.
MC2 runs mainly on external funding from national
research funding actors (Swedish Foundation for
Strategic Research, Swedish Research Council, Swedish
Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) and from
the EU. In addition, private funding from the Knut and
Alice Wallenberg Foundation has been important for
funding scientific instrumentation in the Swedish system.
A smaller portion of research funds is from Chalmers and
from a smaller number of larger firms (such as Philips
Semiconductor, Ericsson, and SAAB). Many of the other
commercial users of MC2 are small spin-offs that cannot
afford their own clean room facility and instrumentation.
5.2 Nanotechnology development
Developments in nanotechnology at Chalmers are related
to several research groups often with strong links to the
MC2 laboratory. The interview data refer to several devel-
opments and IPR processes: a method for sorting nano-

tubes by functionality based on their different electric
conductivity (Separation), a new production paradigm
for carbon-based electronics in which pre-specified nano-
tubes become both component and integrated circuitry
during one single process (NanoIC), a carbon nanotube
electronics relay (NanoRelay) and an electronic filter
function (NanoFilter), and finally a carbon nanotechnol-
ogy component for sensor applications (Quantum Box).
Spin-off ventures that actors discussed were: advanced
scanning tunnelling microscope substrate positioning
equipment (Nanofactory); equipment for the characteriza-
tion of bio-nano interfaces (Q-Sense); equipment for the
analysis of membrane proteins (Nanoxis); diagnostic
6. Integration of entrepreneurial roles in
nanotechnology research at Chalmers
University of Technology
6.1 The formation of a proactive entrepreneurial role
We did not find any fundamental disagreement among the
research leaders interviewed in this study with the idea that
they can integrate a new role of entrepreneurship and com-
mercial exploitation of technology with their traditional
role of conducting research. The identification with, and
ambition to remain in, fundamental science was voiced
alongside statements about their interest in taking on an
active role in technology development and early-stage
commercialization, for instance:
We are moving more towards real applications, still our main
interest is on the basic science... it's a very grey area, (research
group leader)
Another example is from a research leader at MC2. The
example illustrates how a researcher's new role emerged

both as a reaction to external demands and as a view
and attitude growing from within academia:
It is basic research that is my niche, but in order to get external
money, I am forced to always think in terms of applications.
It is also the case that I have had ideas about phenomena and
sensors that are extremely sensitive... I have been in on two
patents, (research group leader)
The researchers often talk about both sides simultaneously
displaying both a reactive and a proactive role. They
clearly defend the integrity of basic research and their
identity remains academic, but they also engage in tech-
nology development and entrepreneurship, in a few cases
proceeding to:
... do business from ideas, (research group leader)
The attitude towards entrepreneurship was found to have
real effects on research. Research agendas have been
altered, doing research sometimes in a new way:
[To] ask the question what is lacking in carbon nanotubes
for it to become electronics... This is exciting also for
researchers... For me this type of problems have become a
source for making me think about this in totally new ways,
and to do physics in a completely new way. (researcher)
Researchers seem to have started to develop ways in which
they can combine business norms and academic norms.
This possible openness towards role integration can be ex-
plained by these researchers' academic norms never having
been 'pure' in the first place. The predecessor to nanotech-
nology in advanced materials research has had a long

tradition of combining fundamental research with an in-
dustrial context (Bensuade-Vincent 2001). The lack of an
institute sector (Benner and Sandström 2000; Edqvist
2003) and a reliance on partnership programs (research
consortias) in advanced materials forms important back-
ground to this contextual link in the Swedish system (cf.
Fogelberg and Sandén 2008).
However, two things have changed that are important
to bear in mind. Scientists today interact with their
external economic environment in a way that is more con-
tractual than it is informally embedded. Also, the loci of
the activity for the early phases of technology development
and commercialization appear (or are increasingly
expected to appear) inside the university rather than
outside. This is not at all displacing the need for later-stage
product development and process innovation through dif-
fusion of innovations to industry actors. The main thrust
of the argument here is that the proactive initiation of new
technology development has, in some cases, been
internalized to the university. To the extent that this phe-
nomenon can be called institutional blurring, it is highly
selective, local, and case specific. These are nevertheless
changes that have not been well understood and that
may have large implications for innovation policy.
6.2 Reconfigurations of the boundary between
content and context of research
There are several ways in which a restructuring of the
boundary between research content and context may
have occurred:

• Researchers have begun to integrate strategic consider-
ations for exploitation and entrepreneurship into their
research decisions.
• They have begun to integrate technology verification
work into the activities of research groups.
• They have begun to build or utilize existing technology
platforms as a way of co-producing research and de-
velopment outputs.
6.2.1 Strategic decision-making about expioitation
enters the academic environment. The researchers
interviewed seem to have approached their new role prag-
matically, focusing on how to expand the volume and
scope of work that the research group organized and was
responsible for, while seeking an integration between
academic work and development activities that was at-
tractive and made sense at the research group level.
Senior research group leaders were engaged in commercial-
ization primarily in the area of scientific instruments. This
type of technical application was closely linked to the tech-
nology platforms and the materials science culture of the
research group.' Younger researchers and PhD students
drove the entrepreneurship that was primarily aimed at
non-scientific applications and markets.^ However, senior
research group leaders played important background
and supporting roles for the younger scientists in these
latter cases. One way this occurred was by providing
access to knowledge networks, laboratory resources, and
instrumentation:
...giving them, kind of, full access, within reason, to the la-
boratory, to see how far they can develop this, until they get a
little better established. Then we will enter more formal

contract issues, (research group leader)
Another way in which a group leader supported innov-
ation was to manage interactions between the group and
external technology collaborators. In the case of collabor-
ation between the carbon nanotechnology research group
and a major international telecom company, group
members developed nanotechnology applications and
project collaboration under the general guidance of the
group leader. The decision of a young researcher to
begin innovating for the industry partner rather than to
continue with more basic research was explained with ref-
erence to inherent personal qualities. The same group
leader noted that it would be:
... very nice if some of the students could be entrepreneurial,
and perhaps see a way of doing something on a commercial
basis...by themselves, rather than me pushing it. (research
group leader)
6.2.2 Technoiogy verification arises as a new
intermediary betv^een science and business. Where
earlier hiring of former doctoral students by industry was
an important intermediary function, other mechanisms
have started to become interesting. In the first years of
the new millennium, technology Verification programs'
entered the Swedish policy discussions and became
regarded as a key factor in stimulating the commercializa-
tion of university technologies. Also several other nations
established government programs and granted funds to
verification of commercially promising ideas (Rasmussen
et al. 2006). Verification was defined as: evaluation,
strategy development for market, patenting and contracts,
and was regarded as a link between different phases of
scientific work and commercialization. It was expected to
encourage researchers to take one step closer to the

market. Integration between research and verification
was needed at the level of the research group because veri-
fication work was highly dependent on the competence and
instrumentation of the research group.
The research group needs to find support from someone or a
few that understands this early research and that can translate
it to a vision... and that can say:
... this is something you can work on as [academic] re-
searchers, but if you come close to this vision, then you
cannot actually publish, because you need to patent first.
nanotechnology research * 135
The other side of this is that you actually have to have a
clear picture of a product before you start to publish or patent,
(university innovation manager)
6.2.3 Technology platforms become a networking
environment for role integration. Existing research
trajectories and technological platforms have played a
crucial role in the formulation of, and work accomplished
in, nanotechnology innovation at the university. This
includes development of smaller research group-based
laboratories and instruments, larger laboratories de-
veloped inside materials science research consortia, engin-
eering research centres, centres of excellence in materials
science, and the MC2 laboratory that is a national resource
for nanoscience research. Research in microelectronics had
provided nanotechnology researchers at Chalmers with a
toolbox that includes facilities, instrumentation, methods,
experienced human capital, funding agents, and targeted

R&D programs. These heterogeneous resources were
directed towards a new area, nanotechnology, and it
served as the basis for new technology platforms.
Different platforms were often linked together and
combined by research groups. In one illustrative case of
this dynamic, involving the idea that you could use single
electron tunnelling components to detect anti-bodies and
different kinds of bio-molecules, the linking started as a
development inside a research group's laboratory. Chips
needed for further development were produced at the
larger MC2 laboratory, and the surface chemistry needed
to develop the application was studied at the nearby
Wallenberg Laboratory. The development was largely
based on personal contacts and networks, which were
common aspects of several other cases of nanotechnology
development reviewed in the interviews. In the above case,
a start-up, was created using this specific combination of
two technology platforms, from which a third and
firm-specific technology platform was built that could be
separated from the academic context and moved off
campus:
... they basically copied the set-up of instruments we have, and
now they have the same thing at [their company], (research
group leader)
However, the new start-up was located close to the campus
and as the network around the new start-up started to
stabilize, development still relied upon close contact with
university researchers and their technology platforms. The
mobility of the technology platform relied heavily on
'upstream' links to the academic environment.
6.3 Policy support and negotiation space for role
integration

Having established that the interviewed researchers were
basically positive about integrating new and established
roles—and had started to experiment with different ways
to achieve such role integration—the question remains:
To what extent does the current policy system in
Sweden support a proactive researcher in taking on the
new role with respect to commercial innovation and
entrepreneurship?
One identified obstacle was the lack of funding for basic
science that could be used more freely to also do minor
verification work as a natural extension of basic science
activities, and also a lack of funding for more direct com-
mercialization activities that go beyond the core activities
of the research group. This was a common theme in all
interviews, exemplified here by two research group leaders:
There is a lack of basic security and basic [non external]
funding, and that makes it extremely difficult to be truly in-
novative, (research group leader)
Because there is so little fixed funding, the best researchers,
who then hopefully are professors, end up just writing appli-
cations, (research group leader)
From the position of researchers, the lack of funding other
than external funding translates directly to determining the
fate of members of the research group and the stability of
the group's research path, since:
... no one dares to be visionary because the risks are now too
high. You risk not having research funding for the next period,
(research group leader)
Research groups could find very little support in the
Swedish system for doing technology development and

commercialization work as an extension of basic and
applied research. Neither the large science funding institu-
tions such as the Research Council, or the Foundation for
Strategic Research, nor the major innovation agencies,
such as the Agency for Economic and Regional Growth
or the Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, had
programs that matched the expectations of a new entre-
preneurial role.
Apart from a lack of money, there was also an organ-
izational insufficiency that became problematic. The insti-
tutional division in the Swedish system between agencies
for science vs. agencies for innovation became problematic
for the development of a technology, such as nanotechnol-
ogy, which is part of both worlds but which was not con-
sidered seriously by either policy domain. The technology
innovation funding agencies regard nanotechnology as too
immature to fall under their remit. At the same time,
science-funding agencies did not regard technology verifi-
cation and development as their responsibility, since
it concerns technology application and innovation.
Neither private venture capital investment nor industry
was interested, as they viewed nanotechnology as being
in a too early state to motivate action. The main network-
ing agent, often unable to stabilize larger development
networks, was the researcher.
Another problem, pointing towards the organizational
infrastructure of the university, was the lack of guidance
and support for innovation. There was agreement among
the researchers interviewed about the importance of
support structures within the university, that in order:

. . . t o position Chaltners in this future technology a r e a . . . w
e
need this infrastructure, (researcher)
Statements by two others exemplify this concern:
There is a widespread understanding among research group
leaders here at MC2 and at other places at Chalmers that we
are not very good at transforming research into businesses and
other forms of commercialization... What is missing is both
the structure and the money to do this, (research group leader)
If there were a support structure, then many would be
prepared to participate. One needs financing, and a more com-
mercially oriented organization that can run it and that can
provide a different thinking. But it still has to be an organiza-
tion tightly linked to our work. The agenda has to be mainly
the same, and there has to be a common interest to bring these
ideas into applications. (Research group leader)
However, there were also limitations to w h a t the proactive
researcher could achieve from an academic position,
which may not be solved by a more effective technology
transfer organization, or stronger funding mechanisms.
The researchers had developed technology verification
projects, university patents and licenses, and small
start-up ventures. Even though all these activities represent
crucial links to the 'commercial context', economic growth
at a regional or national level begs for the stabilization of
much larger actor-networks. A wider range of actors,
including public agencies, investors, and industry, needs
to be convinced to join in the development activities:
The idea was to get some kind of network going [in the region],
trying to get the industry interested in the possibilities that we
have, and we tried to get some collaborator work, some spon-

sorship from the Governmental Agency for Innovation
Systems to go to more applications, and so on. But it was
taking far too much time, and I left it. I think here it is
easier to do things on a small scale... I got so tired of contact-
ing people and, you know, telling them how wonderful every-
thing is and so on. And *yea, yea, in principle we are interested,
but don't call us' sort of thing. And nobody's willing to put
effort into, kind of help to get something going. So I basically
left it, to concentrate on the other things I am supposed to be
doing. But it is a little bit of a pity, because I think the poten-
tial is there to do something, (research group leader)
7. Discussion and conclusions: Policy for
role integration
This case study points to the following developments,
arranged as the historical phases of the knowledge
transfer models. Researchers were embedded in industrial
context and networks for technology development long
before the rise of policies envisioning 'entrepreneurial
universities' in Sweden. However, the role of academic re-
searchers in commercial innovation was largely indirect
and reactive. Researchers and research groups assisted in
industrial R&D essentially without having to be entrepre-
neurial themselves. Direct and proactive entrepreneurial
roles were located outside the university, in (major)
industry, and it reached into academia through industrial
R&D managers that worked closely with academic
research group leaders.
Globalization of the large Swedish technology-based
corporations changed this situation. The natural embedd-
ing of academic researchers with industry started to
decrease. Academic researchers began to come under criti-
cism for being 'decoupled' from the economic context of
their work. Policy-makers and university administrators

began to develop university-based technology transfer
mechanisms and TTOs that could assist direct technology
transfer. The emphasis was primarily on supporting uni-
versity spin-offs and entrepreneurial responsibilities
relating to the TTO model and the quasi-firm model.
The expectation on the workings of the TTO model was
significantly higher than the actual outcome.
The integration of academic and entrepreneurial roles,
however, started to develop. The interviewed scientists—
senior enough to have experienced several knowledge
transfer models (see Table 2)—still identify as basic re-
searchers, but also start to be more positively inclined
toward discussing and engaging in an entrepreneurial
role. The view that fundamental science needed to be sup-
ported and protected was voiced in parallel with the view
that they were willing to promote technology development
and commercialization. Whereas some of the interviewed
researchers had already partaken in start-ups in the period
1995-2005, they now appreciated the build-up of internal
support for patenting and licensing, which allowed them
room to act entrepreneurially from within their roles as
researchers. However, there was one important limitation.
They were agreeable to integrating roles only if given rea-
sonable control of the circumstances of this integration
process. This was important because integration required
them to deal with real changes in the content of research
and the boundary between research content and research
context. Their development work towards potential com-
mercial applications relied on input from basic research
and scientific instrumentation available within the univer-
sity. This may be especially important for nanotechnology,
and particularly for areas of application of nanotechnol-
ogy in which industry is currently weak. One way in which
some of the interviewed researchers had developed a pro-
active networking role was to increase their engagement in

technology verification work; another was to develop or
utilize university laboratories to provide technology plat-
forms for co-producing R&D outputs.
How can these developments be understood? In line
with earlier research on Swedish universities, this study
nanotechnology research * 137
Table 2. Summary of nanotechnology knowledge transfer
paradigms from point of view of researchers interviewed
Knowledge transfer model Characteristics
Until 1995: institutional separation
model
1995-2005: TTO model and
quasi-firm model
2005 onwards: network model
University research is embedded with industrial R&D. Indirect
role for innovation
Research becomes decoupled from industrial contexts. Research
groups are expected to start doing entrepre-
neurial work. University and policy begin to develop innovation
support functions (e.g. TTO and incubator).
Direct role for innovation is expected but remains weak
Deepening of integration of research and innovation.
Entrepreneurial tasks start to become part of networking

activities of research groups and part of their 'ordinary' roles.
Direct role for economy may develop through
a reconfiguration of content/context of research. Direct role
requires that policy delegate control and re-
sources (negotiation space) for innovation to research group
leader function
indicates that researchers have lacked the trust and
support from policy-makers and administrators necessary
to develop and attain the expected levels of performance in
a new role. We do not suggest that the solution to the
policy dimension of this problem is merely to regard
research groups as commercial entities (cf. Etzkowitz
2003). But, neither do we embrace the opposite view that
all forms of role integration should be rejected (cf.
Tuunainen 2005). We tend to agree with the middle-way
presented by Vestergaard (2007) that university entrepre-
neurship on a larger scale requires that entrepreneurial
activities enter the academic heartland and that there
must be some type of integration of tasks that are
workable for the parties involved. However, we disagree
with Vestergaard that role separation at the individual
level is required. Under certain circumstances, role integra-
tion can develop from within the core functions of the
university research group. This integration may need to
be (partly) controlled by researchers, rather than, as has
often been the case, by the university administration or
government agencies. Policy needs to address the willing-
ness of researchers to include innovation into their net-
working activities, while paying respect to needs not only
for autonomy but also for relevant support from the
university.
This study raises a number of theoretical and methodo-
logical concerns about the analysis of research and its
context. In order to better understand the process of role

integration through rearrangement of the boundaries of
research contexts, it was found to be helpful that the in-
vestigator has the methodological attitude that the content
of research and the boundaries between research and
external contexts are not self-evident, and that any new
temporally stable boundary is subject of some form of
(traceable) maintenance work. The 'network model' was
mainly invoked to promote such a methodological
attitude. However, to become a useful policy model that
is accepted by different research actors, it needs to be
refined and integrated with other perspectives.
This study builds on a single case study and the special
field of nanotechnology using a relatively small set of data.
More research is needed in order to move from the tenta-
tive findings of this paper to more solid findings, e.g. by
conducting research on other cases and science areas, and
by making comparisons with other national contexts.
Nevertheless, to base interview interpretations on deeper
contextual and historical understandings, as in this study,
we believe holds promise and should be further explored as
an approach to analyzing historical restructuring of the
science-technology-economy relationships.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Gregory Graff, Merle Jacob, and Karen
Williams Middleton, also Olof Hallonsten, Mats Benner,
and Anders Granberg at the Research Policy Institute in
Lund, and two anonymous referees for their valuable
comments on this paper. We also wish to thank the scien-
tists who were interviewed for their time and participation
in this study.
Notes

1. The examples of venture more linked to technology
platforms at Chalmers include the following:
advanced scanning tunnelling microscope substrate
positioning equipment (Nanofactory); equipment for
the characterization of bio-nano interfaces (Q-Sense);
and equipment for the analysis of membrane proteins
(Nanoxis). A notion of networked platforms at more
aggregated level is developed in Robinson et al. (2007).
2. This includes examples such as a diagnostic biosensor
system for lab-on-a-chip applications (Midorion)
and carbon nanostructures development for informa-
tion and communications technology applications
(Smoltek).
References
Benner, M. (2008) Kunskapsnation i kr is? Politik, pengar och
makt i svensk forskning. Stockholm, Sweden: Bokförlaget
Nya Doxa.
Benner, M. and Sandström, U. (2000) 'Institutionalizing the
triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic
system', Research Policy, 29: 291-301.
Bensuade-Vincent, B. (2001) 'The construction of a discipline:
Materials science in the United States', Historical Studies in
the Physical and Biological Sciences, 31: 223-48.
Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. (2008) 'Academic entrepreneurs:
Organizational change at the individual level'. Organization
Science, 19: 69-89.

Bozeman, B. (2000) 'Technology transfer and public policy: A
review of research and theory', Research Policy, 29: 627-55.
Callón, M. (1991) 'Technoeconomic networks and irreversibil-
ity'. In: Law, J. (ed.) Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power,
Technology and Domination, pp. 132-61. London: Routledge.
Callón, M. and Law, J. (1989) 'On the construction of
sociotechnical networks: Content and context revisited',
Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science
Past and Present, 8: 57-83.
Choi, H. and Mody, C. (2009) 'The long history of molecular
electronics: Microelectronics origins of nanotechnology',
Social Studies of Science, 39: 11-50.
Clark, B. R. (1998) Creating entrepreneurial universities:
Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford, UK:
I AU Press.
Edqvist, O. (2003) 'Layered science and science policies',
Minerva, 41: 207-21.
Elzinga, A. (1980) 'Science policy in Sweden: Sectorization and
adjustment to crisis'. Research Policy, 9: 116-46.
. (1997) 'The science-society contract in historical trans-
formation: with special reference to "epistemic drift"'.
Social Science Information, 36: 411-45.
. (2004) 'The new production of reductionism in models
relating to research policy'. In: Grandin, K., Wormbs, N.
and Widmalm, S. (eds) The Science-Industry Nexus.
History, Policy, Implications, pp. 227-304. Sagamore Beach,
MA: Science History Publishers.

-. (2012) 'Features of the current science policy regime:
Viewed in historical perspective'. Science and Public Policy,
39: 416-28.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983) 'Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepre-
neurial universities in American academic science', Minerva,
21: 198-233.
. (1992) 'Individual investigators and their research groups',
Minerva, 30: 28-50.
. (1998) 'The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive
effects of the new university linkages'. Research Policy, 27:
823-34.
-. (2003) 'Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of
the entrepreneurial university'. Research Policy, 32: 109-21.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) 'The dynamics of in-
novation: From national systems and "mode 2" to a triple
helix of university-industry-government relations'. Research
Policy, 29: 109-23. •
Fogetberg, H. and Sandén, B. (2008) 'Understanding reflexive
systems of innovation: An analysis of Swedish nanotechnol-
ogy discourse and organization'. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 20: 65-81.
Galison, P. (1997) Image and Logic. A Material Culture of
Microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gibbons, M., Lomoges, C , Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S.
et al. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The
Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary
Societies. London: Sage.

Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. (2003) 'Bottom-up versus
top-down policies towards the commercialization of univer-
sity intellectual property', Research Policy, 32: 639-58.
Granberg, A. and Jacobsson, S. (2006) 'Myths or reality - a
scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy
debate'. Science and Public Policy, 33: 321-40.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2005) 'But Peter's in it for the money: The
liminality of entrepreneurial scientists', VEST, 18: 49-75.
Guston, D. H. (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring
the
Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
Goktepe-Hultén, D. (2008) 'Academic inventors and research
groups: Entrepreneurial cultures at universities'. Science and
Public Policy, 35: 657-67.
. (2010) 'A balancing act: Factors behind the formation of
academic entrepreneurship'. Critical Sociology, 30: 521-35.
Heinze, T. and Kuhlmann, S. (2008) 'Across institutional
boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector
nanoscience'. Research Policy, 37: 888-99.
Hellström, T. and Jacob, M. (2005) 'Taming unruly science and
saving national competitiveness: Discourses on science by
Sweden's strategic research bodies'. Science Technology &
Human Values, 30: 443-67.
Henrekson, M. and Rosenberg, N. (2001) 'Designing efficient
institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from
the US and Sweden', Journal of Technology Transfer, 26:
207-31.

Irvine, J. and Martin, B. R. (1989) Foresight in Science: Picking
the Winners. London: Pinter.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. A. and Hellsmark, H. (2003)
'Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university
system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology',
Research Policy, 32: 1555-68.
Jain, S., George, G. and Maltarich, M. (2009) 'Academics or
entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of uni-
versity scientists involved in commercialization activity'.
Research Policy, 38: 922-35.
Jensen, R. and Thursby, M. (2001) 'Proofs and prototypes for
sale: The licensing of university inventions', American
Economic Review, 91: 240-59.
Kurek, K., Geurts, P. and Roosendaal, H. E. (2007) 'The
research entrepreneur: Strategic positioning of the researcher
in his societal environment'. Science and Public Policy, 34:
501-13.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists
and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Law, J. and Callón, M. (1992) 'The life and death of an aircraft:
A network analysis of technical change'. In: Bijker, W. E. and
Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in
Sociotechnical Change, pp. 23-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Nelson, R. R. (2001) 'Observations on the post-Bayh-Dote rise
of patenting at American universities'. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 26: 13-19.

Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C. and Lupton, G. (2011)
'The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying
academic tensions', Technovation, 31: 161-70.
Rasmussen, E., Borch, O. J., Sorheini, R. and Gjellan, A. (2006)
Government initiatives to support the commercialization of
research - an international benchmarking study. Report com-
missioned by the Research Councel of Norway - The
FOR NY-program. Bodo, Norway: Bodo Graduate Business
School of Business, HHB.
Riksrevisionsverket. (2001) Fran forsknlng till tillva.xt - statligt
stöd till samverkan mellan Iwgskola och náringsliv, RRV
2001:11. Stockholm: Swedish National Audit Office.
Robinson, K. R., Rip, A. and Mangematin, V. (2007)
'Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters
and networks in nanotechnology', Research Policy, 36: 871-9.
Rosenberg, N. (2000) Schumpeter and the Endogeneity of
Technology. London: Routledge.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D. and Jiang, L. (2007)
'University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature'.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 1-101.
Sandén, H. and Sandström, U. (2002) 'Forskningsinstituten: det
glesa landskapet'. In: Sandström, U. (ed.) Det nya forskning-
slandskapet. Perspektiv pa vetenskap och politik. Nora,
Sweden: Nya Doxa.

Sandström, U., ed., (2002) Det nya forskningslandskapet.
Perspektiv pa vetenskap och politik. Nora, Sweden: Nya Doxa.
Sandström, U., Heyman, U. and Hällsten, M. (2005) Svensk
forskningsfinansiering: inriktning och styrning. Stockholm:
The Swedish Research Council.
Schummer, J. (2007) 'Identifying ethical issues of
nanotechnologies'. In: ten Have, H. (ed.) Nanotechnology:
Science, Ethics and Politics, pp. 79-98. Paris: UNESCO.
Scott, P. (1997) 'The changing role of the university in the
production of new knowledge'. Tertiary Education and
Management, 3: 5-14.
Shinn, T. (2002) 'The triple helix and new production of know-
ledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology'.
Social Studies of Science, 32: 599-614.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. and 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.
Siegel, D. S., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. (2007) 'The rise of
entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and
societal implications'. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16:
489-504.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. L. (1999) Academic Capitalism:
Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sörlin, S., ed., (2005) / den absoluta frontlinjen. En bok
om forsknirtgsstiftelserna, konkurrenskraften och politikens

möjligheter. Nora, Sweden: Bokförlaget Nya Doxa.
Stokes, D. E. (1997) Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and
Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Tuunainen, J. (2005) 'Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional
university'. Social Studies of Science, 35: 173-210.
Tuunainen, J. and Knuuttila, T. (2009) 'Intermingling academic
and business activities. A new directiort for science and
universities?'. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34:
684-704.
Vestergaard, J. (2007) 'The entrepreneurial university revisited:
Conflicts and the importance of role separation'. Social
Epistemology, 21: 41-54.
Wald, A. (2007) 'Effects of 'Mode 2'-related policy on the
research process: The case of publicly funded German nano-
technology'. Science Studies, 20: 26-51.
Weingart, P. (1997) 'From "Finalization" to "Mode 2": old
wine in new bottles?'. Social Science Information, 36: 591-613.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P. and Lockett, A. (2007)
Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Wullweber, J. (2008) 'Nanotechnology - An empty signifier à
venir? A delineation of a techno-socio-economical innovation
strategy'. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 4: 27-45.
Ziman, J. (2000) Real Science: What it is, and What it Means.
Cambridge, UK: CUP.

Copyright of Science & Public Policy (SPP) is the property of
Oxford University Press and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Science and Public Policy 40 (2013) pp. 127-139Advance Acces.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Science and Public Policy 40 (2013) pp. 127-139Advance Acces.docx

Similar to Science and Public Policy 40 (2013) pp. 127-139Advance Acces.docx (20)

More from bagotjesusa

More from bagotjesusa (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Science and Public Policy 40 (2013) pp. 127-139Advance Acces.docx