Academics and entrepreneurs: Enablers of hybrid identity centrality among university researchers

Figures & data

Video Abstract

Read the transcript

Watch the video on Vimeo

© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Figure 1. Conceptual model and hypotheses of the study.

Table 1. University profiles.

	General profile	Entrepreneurial strategy
University A	The university was established in 2010 following a merger of two previously independent universities. The university is a mid-sized multidisciplinary university (with approx. 11,000 BSc and MSc students and 800 PhD students and about 1500 faculty/staff). In 2017–2018, the university was placed among 300–400 best universities based on THE and CWUR rankings.	In 2015, the university adopted a new strategy to address global challenges. The university sought to strengthen its impact through open science and innovation ecosystems. In the strategy, impact constituted an integral part of the university’s research and education through which the university aimed to create new knowledge and skills, and innovations in collaboration with different societal actors.
University B	The university was established in 2010 following a merger of two previously independent universities. The university is a mid-size multidisciplinary university (with 12,000 BSc and MSc students and 1000 PhD students and about 1800 faculty/staff members). In 2017–2018, the university was placed among 300–400 best universities based on THE and CWUR rankings.	In 2015, the university adopted a new entrepreneurship strategy that was embedded in the whole university: offering education to students and teachers to develop entrepreneurial competences, developing support for entrepreneurship and innovation activities, strengthening partnerships with industry and promoting entrepreneurial culture (for example, awareness raising, awards).

Table 2. Sample composition by disciplinary areas and university (frequencies).

Disciplinary area	University 1	University 2	Total
Humanities	26	11	37
Maths and Natural Sciences (incl. IT & Engineering)	38	37	75
Health Sciences	50	34	84
Economics and Business Studies	48	10	58
Social Sciences	37	21	58
Total	199	113	312

Table 3. Results of CFA, reliability and validity analysis of variables.

					Reliability		Validity
Multi-item variable constructs	Fit indexes	Variable items	t–value	Significance	Cronbach’s alpha	Item-total correlations	Standardized estimates	AVE	CR
Academic identity centrality	χ^2 = 46.885, d.f. = 16, P = .000, χ^2/d.f. = 2.930, NFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.953, CFI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.079	Item 1	–	–	0.883	0.779	0.904	0.499	0.882
		Item 2	11.476	***		0.561	0.596
		Item 3	15.612	***		0.713	0.723
						0.661	0.654
		Item 4	13.362	***		0.791	0.929
		Item 5	24.634	***		0.713	0.739
		Item 6	16.197	***		0.451	0.379
		Item 7	6.770	***		0.631	0.561
		Item 8	10.799	***
Entrepreneurial identity centrality	χ^2 = 39.141, d.f. = 15, P = .001, χ^2/d.f. = 2.609, NFI = 0.978, TLI = 0.967, CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.072	Item 1	–	–	0.916	0.826	0.927	0.560	0.908
		Item 2	11.220	***		0.550	0.630
		Item 3	19.669	***		0.769	0.814
		Item 4	16.492	***		0.740	0.743
		Item 5	24.226	***		0.830	0.896
		Item 6	16.080	***		0.770	0.729
						0.615	0.531
		Item 7	10.129	***		0.679	0.628
		Item 8	12.736	***
Perceived entrep. strategy implementation	χ^2 = 24.764, d.f. = 8, P = .002, χ^2/d.f. = 3.095, NFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.924, CFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.082	Item 1	–	–	0.846	0.638	0.630	0.480	0.829
		Item 2	9.269	***		0.714	0.736
		Item 3	10.876	***		0.784	0.965
		Item 4	10.516	***		0.711	0.888
		Item 5	4.397	***		0.474	0.301
		Item 6	5.112	***		0.487	0.364
Perceived entrep. strategy	χ^2 = 18.129, d.f. = 7, P = .011, χ^2/d.f. = 2.590, NFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.961, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.071	Item 1	–	–	0.906	0.733	0.719	0.570	0.887
		Item 2	12.200	***		0.690	0.633
		Item 3	13.245	***		0.802	0.882
		Item 4	12.945	***		0.774	0.858
		Item 5	10.854	***		0.736	0.732
		Item 6	10.293	***		0.714	0.671
Society-industry orientation	χ^2 = 120.386, d.f. = 34, P = .000, χ^2/d.f. = 3.541, NFI = 0.911, TLI = 0.892, CFI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.090	Item 1	–	–	0.893	0.645	0.682	0.451	0.890
		Item 2	10.423	***		0.643	0.681
		Item 3	9.940	***		0.684	0.654
						0.532	0.521
		Item 4	8.210	***		0.677	0.725
		Item 5	11.383	***		0.560	0.607
		Item 6	9.632	***		0.616	0.651
		Item 7	10.314	***		0.757	0.802
		Item 8	12.494	***		0.651	0.702
		Item 9	11.070	***		0.585	0.652
		Item 10	10.318	***

***P < .001.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min	Max
Hybrid identity centrality	0.260	0.439	0.00	1.00
Age	42.869	12.070	18.00	73.00
Academic research experience	13.609	10.437	1.00	46.00
Entrepreneurship experience	0.266	0.443	0.00	1.00
University 1	0.638	0.481	0.00	1.00
Gender (male)	0.494	0.501	0.00	1.00
Discipline: Humanities	0.119	0.324	0.00	1.00
Discipline: Maths and Natural Sciences (incl. IT & Eng.)	0.240	0.428	0.00	1.00
Discipline: Health Sciences	0.269	0.444	0.00	1.00
Discipline: Economic and Business Sciences	0.186	0.390	0.00	1.00
Discipline: Social Sciences	0.186	0.390	0.00	1.00
Position: Professor, Research Director or the like	0.183	0.387	0.00	1.00
Position: Assistant Professor, Senior Research Fellow, University Lecturer or the like	0.189	0.392	0.00	1.00
Position: Post Doc Researcher, Research Fellow, University Teacher or the like	0.240	0.428	0.00	1.00
Position: PhD Student, Project Researcher or the like	0.388	0.488	0.00	1.00
Perceived entrep. strategy implementation	2.949	0.907	1.00	5.00
Perceived entrep. strategy	3.022	0.939	1.00	5.00
Society-industry orientation	3.341	0.858	1.10	5.00

n = 312

Table 5. Correlation matrix.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1. Hybrid identity centrality
2. Age	0.113*
3. Academic research experience	0.193**	0.730**
4. Entrepreneurship experience	0.206**	0.238**	0.199**
5. University	−0.025	0.053	0.049	0.016
6. Gender	0.015	0.104	0.130*	0.131*	−0.110
7. Humanities	−0.082	0.152**	0.124*	−0.041	0.050	−0.045
8. Maths and Natural Sciences	0.043	−0.034	−0.016	0.018	−0.154**	0.270**	−0.206**
9. Health Sciences	−0.096	−0.025	−0.011	−0.006	−0.054	−0.108	−0.223**	−0.341**
10. Economics and Business Studies	0.130*	−0.039	−0.040	0.104	0.189**	−0.109	−0.175**	−0.269**	−0.290**
11. Social Sciences	−0.001	−0.021	−0.033	−0.083	0.000	−0.027	−0.175**	−0.269**	−0.290**	−0.228**
12. Professor, Research Director or the like	0.079	0.437**	0.552**	0.166**	−0.006	0.097	0.083	−0.091	−0.025	−0.013	0.073
13. Assistant Professor, Senior Research Fellow, University Lecturer or the like	0.181**	0.236**	0.262**	0.006	−0.028	0.031	0.076	−0.042	0.094	−0.020	−0.105	−0.228**
14. Post Doc Researcher, Research Fellow, University Teacher or the like	−0.008	0.012	−0.003	−0.084	0.096	0.000	0.049	0.035	−0.054	0.001	−0.018	−0.266**	−0.272**
15. PhD Student, Project Researcher or the like	−0.201**	−0.547**	−0.645**	−0.062	−0.057	−0.102	−0.170**	0.076	−0.009	0.025	0.042	−0.376**	−0.384**	0.448**
16. Perceived entrep. strategy implementation	0.194**	0.153**	0.161**	0.118*	0.144*	0.118*	−0.148**	0.052	−0.148**	0.249**	−0.015	0.094	0.127*	0.014	−0.189**
17. Perceived entrep. strategy	0.098	0.026	0.040	−0.113*	0.195**	−0.118*	−0.011	−0.113*	−0.030	0.140*	0.026	0.006	0.068	0.073	−0.124*	0.452**
18. Society-industry orientation	0.183**	−0.064	−0.067	0.226**	−0.115*	0.142*	−0.334**	0.100	0.147**	0.174**	−0.174**	−0.057	0.045	−0.036	0.041	0.222**	−0.012

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

N = 312.

Table 6. Binary logistic regression results.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	OR	OR	OR	OR	95 percent CI
(Constant)	0.164**	0.186**	0.239*	0.183*
Control variables
Age	0.744	0.739	0.761	0.776	[0.514–1.165]
Academic research experience	1.510^+	1.534^+	1.564^+	1.538^+	[0.965–2.452]
Entrepreneurship experience	2.778**	2.870**	2.485**	2.379*	[1.234–4.588]
University	0.786	0.669	0.733	0.746	[0.396–1.407]
Gender	0.744	0.728	0.669	0.636	[0.343–1.181]
Maths and Natural Sciences	2.940	2.600+	1.984	2.271	[0.692–7.455]
Health Sciences	1.259	1.196	0.846	0.973	[0.301–3.148]
Economics and Business Studies	4.280**	3.389*	2.386	2.715	[0.796–9.258]
Social Sciences	2.781^+	2.542	2.246	2.773^+	[0.850–9.044]
Assistant Professor, Senior Research Fellow, University Lecturer or the like	2.142^+	2.102^+	2.060	2.326^+	[0.956–5.659]
Post Doc Researcher, Research Fellow, University Teacher or the like	0.940	0.992	0.983	1.095	[0.412–2.908]
PhD student, Project Researcher or the like	0.444	0.499	0.504	0.534	[0.171–1.667]
Main effects
Perceived entrep. strategy implementation		1.229	1.152	1.211	[0.816–7.198]
Perceived entrep. strategy		1.196	1.202	1.068	[0.759–1.502]
Society-industry orientation			1.448*	1.436*	[1.009–2.044]
Moderation effects
Society-industry orientation × perceived entrep. strategy implementation				1.411*	[1.042–1.910]
Society-industry orientation × perceived entrep. strategy				0.995	[0.750–1.319]
Model fit
Cox and Snell R^2	0.138	0.150	0.162	0.177
Nagelkerke R^2	0.203	0.220	0.238	0.260
P-level	***	***	***	***
Events/n	81/312	81/312	81/312	81/312

Dependent variable: strength of hybrid identity centrality. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

n = 312; ***P < .001; **P < .01; *P < .05; ⁺P < .10.

Figure 2. Moderation effect of society-industry orientation on the relationship between perceived entrepreneurship strategy implementation and strength of hybrid identity centrality.

Table

Item 1	I believe that engagement in commercial activities has the potential to confuse university’s central commitment to knowledge production.
Item 2	I am willing to alter my work/research plans to accommodate industrial or societal demands.
Item 3	Industrial or societal links have stimulated me to develop new areas of research.
Item 4	Industrial or societal links have positively influenced my academic career.
Item 5	I believe that academia and industry should be distinct.
Item 6	I pursue success strictly in the academic arena.
Item 7	I pursue industrial collaboration mainly to acquire resources to support academic research.
Item 8	I believe in the fundamental importance of academia-industry collaboration.
Item 9	I pursue industrial collaboration for scientific advancement.
Item 10	I pursue industrial collaboration for commercial exploitation.

Table

Item 1	Being an academic/entrepreneurial is an important part of my self-image.
Item 2	My future is tied to the future of other academics/entrepreneurial people at the university.
Item 3	I have a strong sense of belonging to an academic community/a community of entrepreneurial people.
Item 4	I have a strong professional attachment to other academics/entrepreneurial people at the university.
Item 5	Being an academic/entrepreneurial is an important reflection of who I am.
Item 6	Being an academic/entrepreneurial has very little to do with how I feel about myself.
Item 7	Being an academic/entrepreneurial is not a major factor in my social relationships.
Item 8	Being an academic/entrepreneurial is unimportant to my sense of myself.

Table

	Entrepreneurship strategy
Item 1	My faculty leadership is committed to supporting entrepreneurship.
Item 2	Management of my university is committed to supporting entrepreneurial activity of its staff members.
Item 3	Entrepreneurship is central to my university’s strategy.
Item 4	My university supports engagement with society/industry.
Item 5	My university rewards work on promoting entrepreneurship.
Item 6	Innovation is a key focus of my university.
	Entrepreneurship strategy implementation
Item 1	Entrepreneurship training is available to all staff members in my university.
Item 2	Entrepreneurship training is available to all students in my university.
Item 3	Support to develop entrepreneurship training is available to all teachers in my university.
Item 4	Training about intellectual property rights and licensing is available to everyone in my university.
Item 5	Entrepreneurship rules and policies related to starting entrepreneurial activity within the university are clear to me.
Item 6	I will have freedom to engage in any entrepreneurial activity, if I desire.

Table

	DV: Acad. identity cent.	DV: Acad. identity cent.	DV: Entrep. identity cent.	DV: Entrep. identity cent.
Independent variables
Constant	3.777*** (0.184)	3.720*** (0.186)	2.626*** (0.208)	2.596*** (0.211)
Control variables
Age	–0.094 (0.058)	–0.085 (0.058)	0.029 (0.066)	0.034 (0.066)
Academic research experience	0.214** (0.063)	0.206** (0.063)	–0.008 (0.071)	–0.012 (0.072)
Entrepreneurship experience	0.085 (0.101)	0.056 (0.102)	0.469*** (0.114)	0.453*** (0.115)
University	–0.008 (0.090)	–0.005 (0.090)	–0.129 (0.102)	–0.128 (0.102)
Gender	0.023 (0.088)	0.007 (0.088)	–0.190^+ (0.100)	–0.198* (0.100)
Math and Natural Sciences	–0.201 (0.159)	–0.165 (0.160)	0.100 (0.180)	0.120 (0.181)
Health Sciences	–0.170 (0.153)	–0.125 (0.154)	–0.116 (0.173)	–0.093 (0.176)
Economics and Business Studies	–0.105 (0.169)	–0.075 (0.170)	0.421* (0.191)	0.437* (0.193)
Social Sciences	0.003 (0.157)	0.066 (0.160)	0.075 (0.178)	0.108 (0.182)
Assistant Professor, Senior Research Fellow, University Lecturer	0.040 (0.140)	0.063 (0.140)	0.120 (0.158)	0.132 (0.159)
Post Doc Researcher, Research Fellow, University Teacher	–0.142 (0.145)	–0.117 (0.145)	0.081 (0.164)	0.094 (0.165)
PhD student, Project Researcher	–0.274 (0.166)	–0.259 (0.166)	–0.054 (0.188)	–0.046 (0.188)
Main effects
Perceived entrep. strategy implementation	0.047 (0.051)	0.068 (0.055)	0.058 (0.058)	0.069 (0.062)
Perceived entrep. strategy	0.192*** (0.048)	0.160** (0.051)	–0.015 (0.055)	–0.032 (0.058)
Society-industry orientation	–0.222*** (0.048)	–0.214*** (0.048)	0.425*** (0.054)	0.430*** (0.054)
Moderation effects
Society-industry orientation x perceived entrep. strategy implementation		0.076^+ (0.042)		0.039 (0.048)
Society-industry orientation x perceived entrep. strategy		0.010 (0.041)		0.008 (0.047)
Model fit
R^2	0.531	0.541	0.593	0.595
R^2 change	0.052***	0.011^+	0.135***	0.002

Notes: N = 312; ***P < .001; **P < .01; *P < .05; ⁺P < .10.