Previous studies on academic entrepreneurship have identified which academics would potentially be more involved in academic entrepreneurship (e.g. creation of spin-offs, patents, industry collaboration) (for an overview: Neves & Brito, 2020). For example, women are less likely to engage in academic entrepreneurship (Neves & Brito, 2020). However, the definition of academic entrepreneurship is formulated by defining these activities using the perspective of an “entrepreneurial university” (Etzkowitz, 2001). However, from a researchers’ point of view, these different aspects of academic entrepreneurship might require different strategies and efforts. This implicates that academics might be involved or interested in one aspect of entrepreneurship, but not in other aspects.

Another aspect that is lacking from previous research, is benchmarking the academic results to other employees outside of academia. For example, are academics more involved in entrepreneurial activities as compared to the general working population? 

The current study aims to investigate the entrepreneurial potential inside academia and compare this to other relevant working population. We defined the entrepreneurial potential as academics that are involved in, expected to, or have interest in being (partially) self-employed, own a business, and/or are selling goods or services. We will also investigate whether this entrepreneurial potential is linked to their academic research. Which researchers are most likely to start a business? We consider their gender, type of research] , scientific domain and nationality. Moreover, we will also investigate the human capital of academic researchers, such as if they have the knowledge, skills, and experience to be involved in such entrepreneurial activities and if these stem from the doctoral education. 

The survey is based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Reynolds et.al., 2005) and was administered in a Flemish university, covering all researchers. The results of the academic population will be discussed in the regional context and will be compared with the general population so that it can provide reflections that are useful to other regions. 

This study uses cross-sectional survey data. The survey is based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Reynolds et.al., 2005). The survey was set out in one Flemish university and was directed to all academic staff members (doctoral candidates, postdoctoral researchers and professors) from all scientific disciplines.

We expect to define different profiles for academics that are either involved, expected to or have interested in these entrepreneurial activities. Policy makers can target these profiles with the appropriate information and interventions on academic entrepreneurship. We will link the results with human capital (knowledge, skills and experience) and if this is linked with the doctoral education. Hence, we can shed insights on the doctoral education using the lens of entrepreneurial activities. We also wil compare our findings to the findings of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor to establish how these behaviours, expectations and intentions on entrepreneurial activities relate to other working population. In this way, we can speculate whether existing interventions to raise entrepreneurial activities can also be applied in the academic population.

Etzkowitz (2001). The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 20(2), 18-29. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P, & Chin, N. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data collection and Implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics, 24, 205-231. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-005-1980-1 Neves, S., & Brito, C. (2020). Academic entrepreneurship intentions: a systematic literature review. Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 645-704. DOI: 10.1108/JMD-11-2019-0451