基于TPB的学者创业意向形成机制研究
A Study on Scholars Entrepreneurial Intention Formation Mechanism Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior
摘要: 当前，科学领域的学术主体越来越多地开始涉足经济领域，创办经济实体，引发了国内外学者对“学术创业”这一主题的广泛研究。本文以学术创业的微观主体——学者为研究对象，基于计划行为理论，从心理学和经济学的双重视角出发，在综合分析国内外学术创业文献的基础上探究学者创业意向形成机制，尝试从多角度在理论上建立起学术创业意向研究的分析框架，以期为我国学术创业研究提供新的理论支持，并为政府和学术组织更好地制定相应的制度政策提供理论依据。
Abstract: The cross integration of science and economy close increasingly, which makes academic entrepre- neurship research become a hot topic. This study focused on scholars which were micro-units of academic entrepreneurship as the research object. Based on Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and in the comprehen-sive analysis of the literature at home and abroad on the basis of academic entrepreneurship, we developed a conceptual model integrating both economic and psychological perspectives. We try to set up academic en-trepreneurial intention analysis framework from various angles, which aim to provide theoretical support for the deepening of study in the field of Chinese academic entrepreneurship, and provide theoretical basis for the government and academic organizations to better establish corresponding policy of academic entrepre-neurship.
文章引用：黄攸立, 熊立勇. 基于TPB的学者创业意向形成机制研究[J]. 现代管理, 2013, 3(4): 125-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/MM.2013.34021

参考文献

[1] D. B. Audretsch. The entrepreneurial society. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2007.
[2] G. Maximilian, O. Martin, K. S. Rainer and U. Cantner. Scien- tists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Eco-nomic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychol-ogy, 2012, 33(3): 628-641.
[3] S. A. Shane. Academic entrepreneur-ship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004.
[4] 李华晶等. 学术创业: 国外研究现状与分析[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2008, 12: 124-128.
[5] 李华晶. 学者、学术组织与环境: 学术创业研究评析[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2009, 2: 51-54.
[6] K. Magnus, J. E. Dylan. Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 2000, 14(4): 299-309.
[7] S. F. M. Paula, F. Margarida and M. G. Manuel. Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organizations. Scientometrics, 2007, 70(2), 355- 377.
[8] A. Lockett, D. Siegel, M. Wright, et al. The creation of university spin off firms at public re-search institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Pol-icy, 2005, 34(7): 981-993.
[9] P. D’Este, P. Patel. University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry. Research Policy, 2007, 36(9): 1295-1313.
[10] Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-tional Behav- ior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-2117.
[11] M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research reading, Hoboken: Ad- dison-Wesley, 1975.
[12] S. Shane. Encouraging university entre-preneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 2004, 19(1): 127-151.
[13] N. Nicholson. A theory of work role transitions. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29(2): 172-191.
[14] R. A. Baron. The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering. Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 2004, 221-239.
[15] B. Bird. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for inten- tion. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 1988, 13(3): 442-453.
[16] N. F. Krueger, M. D. Reilly and A. L. Carsrud. Competing mod- els of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 2000, 15(5-6): 411-432.
[17] N. F. Krueger. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brännback, Eds., Understanding theentrepreneurial mind: Opening the black boxNew York: Springer, 2009: 51-72.
[18] S. Mosey, M. Wright. From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepre-neurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 2007, 31(6): 909-935.
[19] T. T. Aldridge, D. B. Audretsch. The Bayh-Dole Act and scien- tist entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 2011, 40(5): 1058-1067.
[20] N. Lacetera. Academic entrepreneurship. Managerial and Decision Economics, 2009, 30(7): 443-464.
[21] M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action ap-proach. New York: Taylor, 2010.
[22] N. F. Krueger, A. L. Carsrud. Entrepreneurial intentions: Apply- ing the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1993, 5: 315-330.
[23] G. S. Becker. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analy- sis with a special reference to education. Chicago: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1964.
[24] P. Azoulay, W. Ding and T. Stuart. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunity? Journal of Econonomic Behavior and Organization, 2007, 63(4): 599-623.
[25] S. Krabel, P. Mueller. What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 2009, 38(6): 947-956.
[26] K. Hoye, F. Pries. “Repeat commercializers”, the “habitual en- trepreneurs” of university-industry technology transfer. Techno- vation, 2009, 29(10): 682-689.
[27] N. Bosma, R. Harding. Global entrepreneurship monitor: GEM 2006 Results. London: London Business School/Babson College, 2007.
[28] P. Davidsson, B. Honig. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 2003, 18(3): 301-331.
[29] J. Thursby, M. Thursby. University licens-ing. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2007, 23(4): 620-639.
[30] T. T. Aldridge, D. B. Audretsch. The Bayh-Dole Act and scien- tist entre-preneurship. Research Policy, 2011, 40(5): 1058-1067.
[31] C. A. Campbell. A decision theory model for entrepreneurial acts. Entrepre-neurship: Theory & Practice, 1992, 17(1): 21-27.
[32] R. E. Kihlstrom, J.-J. Laffont. A general equilibrium entrepre- neurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 1979, 4: 719-748.
[33] F. Liñán, Y.-W. Chen. Development and cross-cultural applica- tion of a specific instrument to measure entre-preneurial inten- tions. 2009.
[34] M. Gulbrandsen. ‘‘But Peter’s in it for the money’’—The liminality of entrepreneurial scientists. VEST Journal for Science and Technology Studies, 2005, 18(1): 49-75.
[35] J. Owen-Smith, W. Powell. Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences. Research in the Sociology of Work, 2001, 10: 109- 140.
[36] H. Etzkowitz. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cogni-tive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 1998, 27: 823-833.
[37] J. Bercovitz, M. Feldman. Academic entre-preneurs: Organiza- tional change at the individual level. Organization Science, 2008, 19(1): 69-89.
[38] D. M. Williams. Outcome expec-tancy and self-efficacy: Theo- retical implications of an unresolved contradiction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2010, 14: 417-425.

为你推荐