Cognitive economics is the fruit of intense ‘trans-epistemic’ communication involving heterogeneous disciplinary areas: its most tangible application can be found in the dialogues between science and enterprise and in the relationship between cognition and entrepreneurship. The hypothesis of classical economics is that the academic inventor or corporate scientist operates under conditions of substantial rationality during the process of knowledge transfer from research to enterprise. The reality, however, is that their actions owe much to spontaneity and unpredictability, deriving from their personal knowledge set and from the opportunities for dynamic learning and for relationships with other individuals offered by laboratory life. The cognitive matrix of academic spin-offs is therefore complex and, if there is to be effective connection with people and innovative organizations capable of enhancing their prospects of success, the old vision that is confined to one-dimensional aspects of the entrepreneurial phenomenon must be rejected. There is thus a need for an integrated study which simultaneously takes into account the particular context, the business model and the individual mechanisms of sharing and transferring knowledge.
AgreP.E. (2003), ‘Hierarchy and history in Simon's Architecture of Complexity’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol 12, No 3, pp 413–426.
2.
AntonelliC. (2005), ‘Technological knowledge and the theory of the firm: The role of idiosyncratic factors’, Working Paper No 07, Department of Economics, Università di Torino, Torino.
3.
AudretschD.B.KeilbachM.LehmannE. (2006), Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Oxford University Press, New York.
4.
AutioE. (1997), ‘New, technology-based firms in innovation networks: Sympathetic and generative impacts’, Research Policy, Vol 26, No 3, pp 263–281.
5.
AutioE.LummeA. (1998), ‘Does the innovator role affect the perceived potential for growth? Analysis of four types of new, technology-based firms’Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 10, No 1, pp 41–55.
6.
Ben-DavidJ. (1971), The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
7.
BourdieuP. (2003), Il mestiere di scienziato, Feltrinelli, Milan.
8.
CarayannisE.G.RogersE.M.KuriharaK.AllbrittonM.M. (1998), ‘High technology spin offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities’, Technovation, Vol 18, no 1, pp 1–11.
9.
ClarysseB.WrightM.LockettA.Van de VeldeE.VohoraA. (2004), ‘Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions’, Working Paper, Universiteit Gent, Gent.
10.
D'AndreaL.DeclichA. (2005), ‘The sociological nature of science communication’, Journal of Science Communication, Vol 4, No 2, pp 16–23.
11.
Del GiudiceM. (2008), L'Impresa Pensante, Giappichelli, Torino.
12.
DenzauA.T.NorthD.C. (1994), ‘Shared Mental models: Ideologies and institutions’, Kyklos, Vol 47, No 1, pp 3–31.
13.
EarlP.E. (2003), ‘Economics and psychology in the 21st century’, paper presented at the Conference on Economics for the Future, Cambridge, 17–19 September.
14.
EgidiM.RizzelloS. (2003), Cognitive Economics: Foundations and Historical Evolution, Working Paper No 4, Department of Economics, Università di Torino, Torino.
15.
EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 823–833.
16.
EtzkowitzH. (2003), ‘Research groups as “quasi-firms”: The invention of the entrepreneurial university’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 109–121.
17.
FishbackB.GulbransonC.A.LitanR.E.MitchellL.PorzigM. (2007), Finding Business ‘Idols’: A New Model to Accelerate Start-Ups, Kauffman Foundation Report, Kansas City, MO.
18.
GrandiA.GrimaldiR. (2005), ‘Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 20, No 6, pp 821–825.
LitanR.E.MitchellL.ReedyE.J. (2007), ‘The university as innovator: Bumps in the road’, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer.
21.
MaggioniV.Del GiudiceM. (2008), ‘Academic inventors or corporate scientists? Market-like behaviors and entrepreneurial intentions stemming from the laboratory life’, in Del GiudiceL.CiacciC.BeanS., eds, Health, Research and Entrepreneurship: Sorghum Food for Celiac Patients, IISF Press, Naples.
22.
McCloskeyD.N. (1988), La retorica dell'economia. Scienza e letteratura nel discorso economico, Einaudi, Torino.
23.
MustarP. (1997), ‘Spin-off enterprises – how French academics create high-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 24, No 1, pp 37–43.
24.
MustarP.ReanaultM.ColomboM.G.PivaE.FontesM.LockettA.WrightM.ClarysseB.MorayN. (2006), ‘Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multidimensional taxonomy’, Research Policy, Vol 35, pp 289–308.
25.
NelsonR.R.WinterS.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
26.
NicolaouN.BirleyS. (2003), ‘Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon’, Management Science, Vol 49, No 12.
27.
NorthD.C. (1996), ‘Economics and cognitive science’, Working Paper, Washington University, St Louis, MO.
28.
OliverA.L.RamatiA. (2003), ‘From science to entrepreneurship: Galileo as a scientist entrepreneur’, Working Paper No 3, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
29.
PirnayF.SurlemontB.NlemvoF., ‘Toward a typology of university spin-offs’, Small Business Economics, Vol 21, No 4, pp 355–369.
30.
RizzelloS. (1997), L'economia della mente, Laterza, Rome–Bari.
31.
ScholtenV.E.OmtaS.W.F.ElfringT. (2001), ‘The significance of parenthood: The social capital of the parent organization and the entrepreneurial outcome’, Research in Entrepreneurship (RENT) Conference XV, Turku, 22–23 November.
32.
ShaneS. (2004), ‘Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh–Dole Act on university patenting in the United States’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 19, No 1, pp 814–829.
33.
ShaneS.StuartT. (2002), ‘Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups’, Management Science, Vol 48, No 1, pp 154–170.
34.
StankiewiczR. (1994), ‘Spin–off companies from universities’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 21, No 2.
35.
SteffensenM.RogersE.M.SpeakmanK. (2000), ‘Spin-offs from research centres at a research university: A communication perspective’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 15, No 1, pp 93–111.
36.
UpstillG.SymingtonD. (2002), ‘Technology transfer and the creation of companies: The CSIRO experience’, R&D Management, Vol 32, No 3, pp 233–239.
37.
WalliserB. (2001), ‘What cognitive economics is about’, in Cognitive Economy, CNRS, Paris.
38.
WrightM.VohoraA.LockettA. (2004), ‘The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 29, No 3–4, pp 287–310.
