Search

This study investigates (i) differences in knowledge intermediation strategies among knowledge and technology transfer organizations (KTTOs) and (ii) the factors that explain such differences. It uses data from 212 Canadian KTTOs. When knowledge delivery capacity (KDC) and knowledge integration capacity (KIC) dimensions of knowledge intermediation are simultaneously accounted for, four categories of KTTOs emerge, namely, (1) knowledge stores ; (2) knowledge match providers ; (3) knowledge integrators ; and (4) knowledge brokers. This heterogeneity results in a differentiation in KTTOs' service delivery strategies. Factors that are conducive to custom-made solutions include (i) increased innovativeness; (ii) higher absorptive capacity; (iii) stronger information search and storage capabilities; (iv) effective customer knowledge management (CKM); and (v) increased networking capabilities. Larger knowledge intermediaries suffer from internal organizational stickiness that prevents them from delivering custom-made services. KTTOs with a low degree of formalization and centralization in decision-making are likely to adopt intermediation strategies aimed at reaching the largest possible number of users. Some managerial and public policy implications are drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a 12-item scale of knowledge spillovers transfer (KST) from scholars in business schools to practitioners outside academia. Design/methodology/approach: A sample of 807 faculty members from 35 Canadian business schools was used for the psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire. The reliability of the scale was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. The construct validity was examined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The nomological validity was assessed by analyzing the prediction of two output indicators by means of KST using structural equation modeling and by testing differences in KST according to other related variables. Findings: The psychometric properties obtained indicate that the instrument is reliable and valid, which invites to its use as a diagnostic tool of KST from scholars in business schools to users outside academia. Research limitations/implications: The KST questionnaire developed and validated in this study can be considered as a useful practical tool enabling the assessment of business scholars' KST activities. Practical implications: The KST questionnaire developed may enlighten business schools' administrators and policy-makers to identify and implement actions to improve the transfer of knowledge between research and practice. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, despite the wide range of quantitative measures proposed in the literature, this is the first study that aims to present a comprehensive, accurate and validated scale to measure KST from scholars in business schools to practitioners outside academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• First used of the "pair matched" technique to compare female and male academics. • First quantification of a leaky pipeline of informal entrepreneurship for both genders. • Women are less numerous to be involved in informal entrepreneurship. • Most female academics follow a progressive path in their entrepreneurial journey. • Female academics struggle to move to remunerated entrepreneurial engagements. Assessing gender disparities in science commercialisation has been in the centre of the unresolved debates on the inadequacies of the methods used to compare female and male academics. Drawing from the literature on non–IP-based academic entrepreneurship and gender disparities in science, this study used the "pair-matched" technique to isolate 406 female and male academics in business schools (203 of each gender from a sample of 729 academics) who share common characteristics regarding academic position, subdisciplinary affiliation, and experience. The study confirms that a comparison of female and noncomparable male academics could lead to an unfair judgement of female academics' performance. However, the results show that even compared to comparable men, women are less involved in remunerated consultations, generate a smaller proportion of their revenue from consultations and are less engaged in the creation of consultancy companies. In addition, the study allows us to quantify a leaky pipeline of both genders involved in informal academic entrepreneurship and to identify four paths, from progressive to nonprogressive. Most female academics follow a progressive entrepreneurial path but often struggle to move from nonremunerated to remunerated entrepreneurial engagements. The study concludes with implications for university administrators on knowledge transfer and gender inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]