Joris Mercelis

Academic entrepreneurship and institutional change in historical perspective

Abstract This article provides a historical perspective on academic entrepreneurship and its role in institutional change, and serves as an introduction to a special issue devoted to the subject. Unlike approaches that define academic entrepreneurship narrowly as the commercialization of academic research, we argue that historical research and reasoning justify a broader conceptualization focused on the pursuit of future forms of value in academic knowledge production, application, and transmission. Understood in this way, academic entrepreneurship has long been a significant driver of institutional change, not only within the academic world but also in shaping the organization of markets and states. The article develops this argument in three major sections. First, it draws out themes implicit within the historiography of science and technology that highlight the role of entrepreneurship in reshaping academia and its relationship to society. Second, it establishes conceptual foundations for more explicitly examining the processes by which academic entrepreneurship acted as a driver of institutional change. Finally, it synthesizes the findings of the articles in the special issue pertaining to these entrepreneurial processes. The article concludes by arguing for the role of history in rethinking academic entrepreneurship in our own time, and by outlining directions for further research.

Commercializing science: nineteenth- and twentieth-century academic scientists as consultants, patentees, and entrepreneurs

Abstract The collection of essays introduced in this article contributes to the debate on the commercialization of academic science by shifting the focus from institutional developments meant to foster university technology transfer to the actions of individual scientists. Instead of searching for the origins of the ‘entrepreneurial university,’ this special issue examines the personal involvement of academic physicists, engineers, photographic scientists, and molecular biologists in three types of commercial activity: consulting, patenting, and full-blown business entrepreneurship. The authors investigate how this diverse group of teachers and researchers perceived their institutional and professional environments, their career prospects, the commercial value of their knowledge and reputation, and their ability to exploit these assets. By documenting academic scientists’ response to market opportunities, the articles suggest that, already in the decades around 1900, commercial work was widespread and, in some cases, integral to academics’ teaching and research activity.

Commercializing academic knowledge and reputation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: photography and beyond

Abstract This article argues that Hermann Vogel (1834–1898), the head of the photochemical laboratory of the Technische Hochschule Berlin-Charlottenburg, was not exceptional in pursuing business undertakings throughout his academic career. After highlighting the involvement of higher education employees of various disciplines and institutions in the photographic industry as consultants, patentees, and entrepreneurs, I more closely examine the commercial activities of Vogel and those of Adolf Miethe (1862–1927), Vogel’s successor in Berlin. This analysis points to a notable continuity through time. It shows that these scientists’ decades-long engagement in commercial work was not materially affected by (1) their salary levels, (2) the emergence of industrial research in the photographic and optical industries, and (3) changes in the amount of government funding for scientific research. In addition, it reveals that the Prussian education ministry maintained a strong focus on reputational risks in handling complaints concerning commercial activities of these academics.

Definitions, interactions and beyond: response to Carlson, Galambos, Musselin and Wright

ABSTRACT Responding to the commentators on the two special issues (in Management and Organizational History and in History and Technology) devoted to academic entrepreneurship in historical perspective, we renew our invitation to adopt a broad definition of the term entrepreneurship, and elaborate on our view that it can be a heuristically valid tool in the analysis of historical change in the academic, political, and social worlds. We agree, in particular, that more research needs to be carried out on the relationships between the institutional and commercial aspects of entrepreneurship in academia, and how the two aspects coalesced into forms of “organized entrepreneurship” at the university level. Particularly promising in this regard would be historical research on the interdependencies between entrepreneurial processes at the individual and organizational levels, the changing roles of administrative officers and governing bodies of institutions of higher education, and shifts in the regulation of academics’ outside activities. Studies of the changing ways that business people and organizations integrate academic knowledge into products and enterprises in collaboration with academic partners would also contribute to this research agenda. For all the obstacles and difficulties arising from differences of interpretation across disciplines, interdisciplinary scholarship between history and the social sciences remains promising as a way to engage in research on the evolution of academic entrepreneurship, as well as an effective way to question the relevance of our concepts in our own disciplines.

The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators, and Everyday Intellectual Property by Jessica Silbey (review)

In light of the ongoing debate about perceived shortcomings of the American patent and copyright systems and the best ways to address them, Jessica Silbey’s exploration of the presence or absence of intellectual property law in the daily lives of creative individuals is timely. Her book is based on fifty in-depth interviews with a broad range of people in New England and New York, including inventors, musicians, artists, filmmakers, and writers, as well as business agents and attorneys active in intellectual property– intensive industries. She convincingly argues that these interviews challenge an assumption underlying many arguments in favor of strong intellectual property (IP) protection: the notion that IP provides the economic incentives necessary to foster the production and dissemination of works of authorship and invention. Silbey questions this “classic incentive story” of IP (p. 108) on a step-by-step basis, in six thematic chapters that present a detailed empirical account of the nature of creative labor and the habits and values supporting it. First of all, her research suggests that IP law is largely superfluous for initiating creative production: when embarking on a new project, the interviewees did not primarily think of IP as a means to recover the expenses they were likely to incur. In fact, they were often not thinking of IP law at all, and were unfamiliar with several of its provisions. The IP attorneys and corporate agents were, unsurprisingly, an exception. However, as Silbey emphasizes, even their understanding of the motives underlying successful innovative endeavors does not unambiguously support the economic incentive theory. The next steps in the book’s analysis suggest that IP becomes more important in later phases in the development of creative work, be it of an artistic or scientific nature. But at these stages, too, IP law is significantly misaligned with the primary values, needs, and business strategies of the interviewees. For example, Silbey’s research subjects compare developing their creative projects to “raising children.” This metaphor accords with their emphasis on emotional rewards, rather than IP-generated revenue. It also captures their long-term horizons and appreciation of daily routines aimed at realizing gradual progress, rather than ingenious “eureka moments” more readily convertible into IP. Silbey’s discussion of various cases where research subjects overenforce or underenforce their legal rights also points to the limitations of IP law. She argues that interviewees’ attachment to their professional reputation is an especially significant reason leading to occasional IP overenforcement. Conversely, the common practice of sharing creative works with users and B O O K R E V I E W S