A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ON DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP ORIENTATION ON CAREER MOTIVATION

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 2, 940 - 959, 15.06.2023

Figen Sütay , Çağrı Bulut

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1274508

Öz

The increase in the number of studies revealing the effects of entrepreneurship on economic development and employment leads to a rapid increase in the interest in entrepreneurship and concepts related to entrepreneurship. The starting point of academic entrepreneurship is that scientists do research throughout their careers, commercialize their knowledge and experience, and create economic and social benefits. The entrepreneurial university concept, which emerged as a result of the harmonization of the teaching and research duties of universities with economic development, forms the basis of the academic entrepreneurship concept. In this study, the effect of the entrepreneurial orientation of academic staff on their career motivation is investigated. The main purpose of the study is; to determine the dimensions of academic entrepreneurship that determine career motivation. The research data was collected through an online survey conducted with 1425 academic staff working in faculties of Dokuz Eylul University (DEU) and 81 answers were obtained. According to the findings obtained as a result of the analysis; it can be said that the academic entrepreneurship dimension that determines career motivation is innovation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Entrepreneurship, Academic entrepreneurship, Career, Career motivation

AKADEMİK GİRİŞİMCİLİK YÖNELİMİNİN KARİYER MOTİVASYONU ÜZERİNE ETKİSİNİ BELİRLEMEYE İLİŞKİN NİCEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Girişimciliğin, ekonomik gelişme ve istihdam üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koyan araştırma sayısının artması, girişimcilik ve girişimciliğe ilişkin kavramlara yönelik ilginin de hızla artmasına yol açmaktadır. Bilim insanlarının, kariyerleri boyunca yaptıkları araştırmalar, edindikleri bilgi ve deneyimlerini ticarileştirmeleri, ekonomik ve sosyal fayda yaratmaları akademik girişimciliğin çıkış noktası olarak ifade edilmektedir. Üniversitelerin öğretme ve araştırma görevlerini ekonomik kalkınma ile uyumlaştırılması sonucu ortaya çıkan girişimci üniversite kavramı, akademik girişimcilik kavramına temel oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada akademik personelin girişimcilik yönelimlerinin akademik personelin kariyer motivasyonuna etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Çalışmanın temel amacı ise; kariyer motivasyonunu belirleyen akademik girişimcilik boyutlarını belirlemektir. Araştırma verisi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi (DEÜ) bünyesinde fakültelerde çalışan 1425 akademik personel ile gerçekleştirilen ve 81 cevabın elde edildiği online anket ile toplanmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre; kariyer motivasyonunu belirleyen akademik girişimcilik boyutunun yenilikçilik olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Girişimcilik, Akademik Girişimcilik, Kariyer, Kariyer Motivasyonu

Kaynakça

• Altuntas, G. & Donmez, D. (2009). Girişimcilik yönelimi ve örgütsel performans ilişkisi: Çanakkale bölgesinde faaliyet gösteren otel işletmelerinde bir araştırma. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-50.
• Bolton, D. L. & Lane, M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument. Education + Training , 219-233.
• Brennan, M. C. & McGowan, P. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship: an exploratory case study . International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12 (3), 144-164.
• Bulut, C. & Aslan, G. (2014). Üniversitelerde gerçekleşen girişimcilik faaliyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 119-129.
• Busenitz, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making: It’s a matter of perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
• Cagle, M. & Ozen, A. (2019). Girişimcilik yönelimi ve finansal performans ilişkisinin araştırılmasında aile şirketlerinin moderatör rolü. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 879-902.
• Chung, Y.-Y. & Chen, M.-H. (October 2020). Creative entrepreneurs’ creativity, opportunity recognition, and career success: Is resource availability a double-edged sword? European Management Journal, 750-762.
• Covin, J. G. & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 47-63.
• Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign enviroments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
• Crant, M. J. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435-462.
• Davis, D., Morris, M. & Allen, J. (1991). Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19 (1), 43-51.
• Day, R. & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protege career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 72-91.
• Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in american academic science. Minerva, 198-233.
• Ferreira, F. A., Marques, C. S., Bento, P., Ferreira, J. J. & Jalali, M. S. (2015). Operationalizing and measuring individual entrepreneurial orientation using cognitive mapping and MCDA techniques. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2691-2702.
• Fiş, A. M. & Wasti, A. S. (2009). Örgüt kültürü ve girişimcilik yönelimi ilişkisi. METU Studies In Development, 127-164.
• Frese, M. & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 133-187.
• Fugate, M. & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 503-527.
• Huyghe, A. & Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40 (1), 138-160.
• Hyun, J. J. & Jeongsik, L. J. (2014). The impacts of science and technology policy interventions on university research: Evidence from the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative. Research Policy, 43, 74-91.
• Kanfer, R. & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29 (3), 440-458.
• Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-Cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12 (3), 213-225.
• Knockaert, M., Foo, M. D., Erikson, T. & Cools, E. (2015). Growth intentions among research scientists: A cognitive style perspective. Technovation, 38, 64-74.
• Koe, W.-L. (2016). The relationship between individual entrepreneurial orientation (ieo) and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research , 6-13.
• Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D. & Weaver, K. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: a multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practise, 26 (4), 71-93.
• London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8 (4), 620-630.
• Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E. & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in Academe: an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110-131.
• Lumpkin, G. T. & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 (1), 135–172., 21, 135-172.
• Lumpkin, G. & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 429-451.
• Lundqvist , A. M. & Middleton , K. L. (2013). Academic entrepreneurship revisited – university scientists and venture creation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20 (3), 603-617.
• Mazzoni, T. L. & Clugston, R. M. (1987). Big business as a policy innovator in state school reform: a minnesota case study. EEPA.
• Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3 (1), 1-25.
• Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (2), 160-197.
• Mishra, P. & McDonald, K. (2017). Career resilience: an integrated review of the empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16 (3), 207-234.
• Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K. & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention as developmental outcome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 63-72.
• Ozgul, U. & Kunday, O. (2015). Conceptual development of academic entrepreneurial intentions scale. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 881-887.
• Palich, L. E. & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 425-438.
• Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C. & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31, 161-170.
• Prodan, I. & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 332-347.
• Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. & Crant, M. J. (2001). What do proactive people do? a longitudinal model unking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845-874.
• Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? the effect of the bayh-dole act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 127-151.
• Shore, C. & McLauchlan, L. (2012). 'Third mission' activities, commercialisation and academic entrepreneurs. Social Anthropology, 20 (3), 267-286.
• Siegel, D. & Wright, M. (2015, October). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582-595.
• Stevenson, H. H. & Jarillo, J. C. (2007). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. In A. Cuervo, D. Ribeiro, & S. Roig (Eds.), Entrepreneurship Concepts, Theory and Perspective (pp. 155-170). Berlin: Springer.
• VanDam, K., Oreg, S. & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organisational change: the role of leader– member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57 (2), 313-334.
• Wanberg, C. R. & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (1), 132-142.
• Woods, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54, 153-161.
• Yepez, E., Marin-Carillo, G. M., Casado-Belmonte, M. & Capobianco-Uriarte, M. M. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review of its evolution and new trends. Journal of Cleaner Production.