The case study examines the identity work of academics who have moved to or are considering a work position in a university spin-off company. The main findings outline two strategies of hybrid identity work and related boundary work tactics through which academics build connections and mark differences between science and business. Connection-building strategy highlights commonalities and shared elements between science and business, while the difference-building strategy emphasizes distinctions and separations between them. The analysis is supported by evidence from longitudinal interviews with academics in Finland actively involved in science-based businesses or contemplating such involvement. The main findings show that these strategies were used by both groups in different sensemaking situations. However, those working full-time in a university spin-off company often adopted the connection-building strategy to legitimize their career shift from academia to industry. Conversely, those considering a future position in a university spin-off often relied on the difference-building strategy to problematize and justify their hesitation in accepting such a position.
BrownA. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 20–40.
2.
BrownA. D. (2022). Identities in and around organizations: Towards an identity work perspective. Human Relations, 75(7), 1205–1237.
3.
DuberleyJ., CohenL., & LeesonE. (2007). Entrepreneurial academics: Developing scientific careers in changing university settings. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(4), 479–497.
4.
ErikssonP., & KovalainenA. (2010). Case study research in business and management. In MillsA., DureposG., & WiebeR. (Eds.), Sage encyclopedia of case research (pp. 93–96). Sage Publications.
5.
ErikssonP., & KovalainenA. (2015). Qualitative methods in business research. Sage Publications.
6.
ErikssonP., HyttiU., KomulainenK., MontonenT., & SiivonenP. (Eds.). (2021). New movements in academic entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.
7.
FogelbergH., & LundqvistM. A. (2013). Integration of academic and entrepreneurial roles: The case of nanotechnology research at Chalmers University of Technology. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 127–139.
8.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
9.
GioiaD. A., CorleyK. G., & HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
10.
GiuntiG., & DuberleyJ. (2023). Academic entrepreneurship: Work identity in contexts. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 35(5–6), 532–552.
11.
JainS., GeorgeG., & MaltarichM. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935.
12.
KarhunenP., OlimpievaI., & HyttiU. (2017). Identity work of science-based entrepreneurs in Finland and in Russia. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(5–6), 544–566.
13.
LaasonenV., KolehmainenJ., & SotarautaM. (2022). The complexity of contemporary innovation policy and its governance in Finland. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(4), 547–568.
14.
LamA. (2010). From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university—Industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307–340.
15.
LamA. (2018). Boundary-crossing careers and the ‘third space of hybridity’: Career actors as knowledge brokers between creative arts and academia. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(8), 1716–1741.
16.
LamA. (2020). Hybrids, identity and knowledge boundaries: Creative artists between academic and practitioner communities. Human Relations, 73(6), 837–863.
17.
LeišytėL., & Hosch-DayicanB. (2016). Boundary crossing and maintenance among UK and Dutch bio scientists: Towards hybrid identities of academic entrepreneurs. In LeišytėL. & WilkesmannU. (Eds.), Organizing academic work in higher education (pp. 223–242). Routledge.
18.
Majoor-KozlinskaI., HyttiU., & StenholmP. (2024). Academics and entrepreneurs: Enablers of hybrid identity centrality among university researchers. Journal of Small Business Management, 62(6), 3191–3225.
19.
MillerK., AlexanderA., CunninghamJ. A., & AlbatsE. (2018). Entrepreneurial academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Management, 77(1–3), 9–37.
20.
MoilanenJ. (2022). Constructing a tensioned sense of academic entrepreneurship (Doctoral dissertation). University of Eastern Finland.
21.
MoilanenJ., MontonenT., & ErikssonP. (2021). The conflictual sense of commercialisation and academic entrepreneurship. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 21(2–3), 165–177.
22.
MontonenT. (2014). Tutkimuksen ja liiketoiminnan välissä: johtajien identiteettityö yliopistolähtöisissä yrityksissä [In-between science and business: Managers’ identity work in university spin-off companies] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Eastern Finland.
23.
MontonenT., ErikssonP., & AromaaE. (2021). Liminality and hybridity of academic entrepreneurship. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 21(2–3), 178–190.
24.
MäkinenE. I., & EskoT. (2022). Nascent academic entrepreneurs and identity work at the boundaries of professional domains. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 24(3), 167–177.
25.
PisanoG. P. (2010). The evolution of science-based business: Innovating how we innovate. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(2), 465–482.
26.
RangaM., PerälampiJ., & KansikasJ. (2016). The new face of university–business cooperation in Finland. Science and Public Policy, 43(5), 601–612.
27.
SchouP. K. (2023). Coming apart while scaling up–adoption of logics and the fragmentation of organizational identity in science-based ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 60(3), 688–721.
28.
TurnerJ. C., BrownR. J., & TajfelH. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187–204.
29.
WatsonT. J. (2008). Managing identity: Identity-work, personal predicaments and structural circumstances. Organization, 15(1), 121–143.
30.
WoiceshynJ., & ErikssonP. (2014). How innovation systems in Finland and Alberta work: Lessons for policy and practice. Innovation Management, Policy and Practice, 16(1), 19–31.
