MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404753918 · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2024.105156

“Meet me at the backdoor”: A multiple case study of academic entrepreneurs bypassing their technology transfer offices

2024· article· en· W4404753918 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Cancer InstituteSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBackdoorTechnology transferBusinessTransfer (computing)MarketingComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the underexplored phenomenon of technology transfer office (TTO) bypassing in academic entrepreneurship. While TTOs are established to centralize and support intellectual property-based commercialization, a significant portion of entrepreneurial projects avoid the TTO. Relying on both economic (transaction cost theory) and ethical (Tyler's justice model) considerations, this study explores the motivations and contextual factors behind a researcher's decision to commercialize an invention using means other than the TTO. This multiple case study employs an in-depth exploratory qualitative approach to investigate five academic entrepreneurs across different disciplines in Canadian universities who chose to bypass their TTO, often in contravention of institutional policies. Our findings reveal a complex interplay among individual motivations, institutional policies, and market realities. We identified four paths of awareness and strategic intent in this process ranging from unintentional non-compliance to tactical avoidance which challenge a simplistic perception of TTO bypassing as merely unintentional rather than deliberate. The study also reveals four overlapping contexts that promote TTO bypassing: confidence in personal expertise, previous negative experience of using the TTO, peer-influenced skepticism, and external partner challenges. Furthermore, the findings show that the reasons for bypassing include both economic and ethical motivations which steer academic entrepreneurs toward alternative, privately managed commercialization paths. The article concludes with some implications for university managers and policymakers related to how to address the multifaceted motivations for TTO bypassing. • First study to explore the point of view of academic entrepreneurs who have personally bypassed their TTOs. • TTO bypassing occurs based on a series of paths representing varying levels of awareness and strategic intent. • Four overlapping bypassing contexts identified, such as expertise confidence, negative TTO experience, or peer skepticism. • The transaction cost theory and Tyler's justice model explain motivations and economic/ethical rationales for TTO bypassing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it