Embracing duality in academic spin‐offs: A systematic review and agenda for future research

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Davide Hahn, Giuseppe Criaco, Tommaso Minola, Daniel Pittino, Silvio Vismara
{"title":"Embracing duality in academic spin‐offs: A systematic review and agenda for future research","authors":"Davide Hahn, Giuseppe Criaco, Tommaso Minola, Daniel Pittino, Silvio Vismara","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic spin‐offs (ASOs), a distinct form of hybrid venture, operate at the intersection of economic (business) and non‐economic (academic) logics. Although traditional literature often portrays these logics as inherently conflicting, emphasizing the trade‐offs ASOs must manage, recent empirical findings challenge this view, suggesting that integrating academic and business logics can be beneficial. This paper presents a systematic review of the ASO literature, leveraging the concept of duality to explore the dynamic interplay between academic and business logics. The duality perspective underscores the importance of considering both complementarities and oppositions between seemingly incompatible logics. By synthesizing existing empirical findings, we propose a framework that clarifies how the oppositions and complementarities between academic and business logics influence ASOs’ academic and business outcomes. Our framework highlights the need for more nuanced, dynamic and multilevel approaches in studying ASOs, offering future research directions that embrace the duality perspective. This integrative view aims to inspire further investigation into hybrid ventures, illustrating how economic and non‐economic logics can jointly foster both non‐economic and economic outcomes.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12398","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic spin‐offs (ASOs), a distinct form of hybrid venture, operate at the intersection of economic (business) and non‐economic (academic) logics. Although traditional literature often portrays these logics as inherently conflicting, emphasizing the trade‐offs ASOs must manage, recent empirical findings challenge this view, suggesting that integrating academic and business logics can be beneficial. This paper presents a systematic review of the ASO literature, leveraging the concept of duality to explore the dynamic interplay between academic and business logics. The duality perspective underscores the importance of considering both complementarities and oppositions between seemingly incompatible logics. By synthesizing existing empirical findings, we propose a framework that clarifies how the oppositions and complementarities between academic and business logics influence ASOs’ academic and business outcomes. Our framework highlights the need for more nuanced, dynamic and multilevel approaches in studying ASOs, offering future research directions that embrace the duality perspective. This integrative view aims to inspire further investigation into hybrid ventures, illustrating how economic and non‐economic logics can jointly foster both non‐economic and economic outcomes.
拥抱学术衍生的双重性:未来研究的系统回顾和议程
学术分拆(ASOs)是一种独特的混合风险投资形式,在经济(商业)和非经济(学术)逻辑的交叉点上运作。尽管传统文献经常将这些逻辑描述为内在冲突,强调aso必须管理的权衡,但最近的实证研究结果挑战了这一观点,表明整合学术和商业逻辑可能是有益的。本文对ASO文献进行了系统的回顾,利用对偶概念来探索学术逻辑和商业逻辑之间的动态相互作用。对偶观点强调了在看似不相容的逻辑之间同时考虑互补性和对立性的重要性。通过综合现有的实证研究结果,我们提出了一个框架,澄清学术和商业逻辑之间的对立和互补如何影响ASOs的学术和商业成果。我们的框架强调了在研究aso时需要更细致、动态和多层次的方法,并提供了包含二元视角的未来研究方向。这种综合观点旨在激发对混合企业的进一步研究,说明经济和非经济逻辑如何共同促进非经济和经济结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信