Universities are key actors in regional entrepreneurship ecosystems as producers of knowledge and vehicles of knowledge transfer (Iwara & Kilonzo 2022; Lahikainen 2021). Commercializing university-generated knowledge has increased globally. Entrepreneurial universities synthesise overlapping concepts such as the universities’ Third Mission, academic entrepreneurship, and the Triple Helix model. At the core of these concepts lies the conversion of university-generated knowledge to value. Technology transfer offices (TTOs) and incubators have been established to support the commercialisation of university-generated knowledge globally (Amry, Ahmad & Lu 2021; McAdam, Miller & McAdam 2017) and in South Africa (Alessandrini, Klose & Pepper 2013; Cullen, Calitz & Chetty 2020; Kruger, Steyn & Steyn 2020; Urban & Chantson 2019). The potential for research-based commercialisation has incited scholarly interest towards academic entrepreneurship for some time globally and more recently in South Africa (Perkmann et al. 2021; Urban & Chantson 2019).

Academic entrepreneurship is an innovative activity, by an academic staff member, that extends beyond traditional teaching and researching (Abreu & Grinevich 2013; Urban & Chantson 2019). Innovative activities refer to activities with the potential to deliver developmental outputs such as patents, licences and inventions (Miyata 2000) or business opportunities such as sensors for early detection of diseases, inclusive of cancer, being commercialised by an academic entrepreneur at Stellenbosch University (SU). Academic entrepreneurship involves characteristics of both the individual and the institution (Urban & Chantson 2019). The new expanding role accommodating commercialisation and social impact of universities attracted attention of external stakeholders (Pinheiro, Langa & Pausits 2015; Wurth, Stam & Spigel 2021) and as traditional societal frameworks are being re-engineered by globalisation, digitisation and turbulent environments universities are increasingly establishing their position in the commercial markets (Rothaermel, Agung & Jiang 2007). Universities have developed internal mechanisms to bridge activities to meet expectations of external stakeholders and actively contribute to socioeconomic development (Čábelková, Normann & Pinheiro 2017; Pinheiro et al. 2015) increasing the potential for societal impact. Active participation in commercialisation provides third stream income and consequently access to resources and capacity, thereby underpinning independence (Swartz et al. 2019).

South Africa represents an entrepreneurial environment where universities can play a role in managing the competitive and complex nature of modern society (Iwara & Kilonzo 2022). With 11 research intensive-universities South Africa exhibits advanced research milieus in many areas, such as medicine, life science and biotech (Alessandrini et al. 2013; Urban & Chantson 2019). However, Urban and Chantson (2019) found that South African universities are not efficient in commercialising research output. Institutions in emerging economies are found to impact entrepreneurial choice differently compared with developed countries (Pathak, Xavier-Oliveira & Laplume 2015). Of the 50 economies surveyed, South Africa scored insufficient on all 13 Economic Framework Conditions (EFCs) (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019), which according to GEM are the key influencing factors of entrepreneurial activity on economic growth. Academics in emerging economies, such as South Africa, are discouraged by factors such as inadequate institutional support (Haeussler & Colyvas 2011). Nevertheless, South Africa attempts to strengthen its position globally, embracing the need to enhance the outputs of innovation to direct the country into a ‘knowledge-economy’, where economic growth is driven by innovation (Alessandrini et al. 2013). South Africa is leading among sub-Saharan countries, with strengths being the size of the economy, the accountability of private institutions, business sophistication, good-quality scientific research institutions, and a sound intellectual property (IP) regime (Alessandrini et al. 2013). But challenges remain regarding R&D and innovation capacity. To address this, South Africa is seeking strategies to support the entrepreneurial system, with universities playing an important role in skills development, research, intellectual property (IP), licencing and spin-offs (Alessandrini et al. 2013; Department of Science and Technology 2019; Kruger et al. 2020).

Contextual insights into institutional constraints and enabling factors are crucial for promoting academic entrepreneurship (Miller, McAdam & McAdam 2018; Snowball & Shackleton 2018). Despite growing interest in South African university entrepreneurship, research predominantly focuses on developed countries, with limited, in-depth exploration of the dynamics within individual prestigious institutions such as Stellenbosch University (Ismail 2021; Kruss & Visser 2017). This study, through a qualitative, case-study approach, fills this gap by investigating the unique interplay of factors influencing academic entrepreneurship from a process perspective in South Africa’s emerging economy context. To address this void of research, the study attempts to identify facilitating and hindering factors in the pathway of research commercialisation. Pathway refers to the procedure(s) and challenges academics follow and deal with, respectively, to commercialise research output. To this end, the research question to guide the study is: What is the nature of the pathway of academic entrepreneurship at Stellenbosch University?

The rest of the article is structured as follows; Conceptual-model section, followed by research design and methods, findings, and a discussion of the findings. The article will end off with concluding remarks followed by the study’s limitations, contributions and recommendations.

The entrepreneurial university concept emphasises the transformation of traditional universities into more proactive and innovative organisations that actively engage in entrepreneurial activities and commercialisation (Audretsch & Belitski 2021; Mascarenhas et al. 2017). This transformation is characterised by a shift in university missions, strategies and organisational culture, focusing on the creation, dissemination, and application of knowledge for socio-economic development (Audretsch 2017; Hayter et al. 2018). Entrepreneurial universities foster an environment that encourages and supports academic entrepreneurship through various initiatives, such as entrepreneurial education and learning, research commercialisation and community engagement (Audretsch & Belitski 2021; El-Sayed 2020; Rice, Fetters & Greene 2014).

Universities are experiencing a change in the institutional context of knowledge production and in the nature of the knowledge being produced (Limoges et al. 1994) and are encouraged if they are lagging (Dorji, Miller & Wu 2022). In Figure 1, the transition from Mode 1 to Mode 2 research demonstrates the shift from basic and traditional research, produced solely for an academic context, to applied research implemented in commercial and societal contexts. Mode 1 research is scientific-community-centric knowledge production, also referred to as basic research (Calvert 2006) not intended for extending to non-scientific application (Amara, Olmos-Peñuela & Fernández-de-Lucio 2019). Mode 2 research is problem-centric knowledge production (Frost & Osterloh 2003) extending basic research beyond scientific application (Amara et al. 2019). Mode 2 research is multidisciplinary (Callaghan 2019) characterised by inter- and trans-disciplinary collaboration promoting interaction between scientific and non-scientific actors (Alsaeed, Hadjri & Nawratek 2023). This leads to a network of diverse stakeholders and interface mechanisms, which collectively can be seen as an entrepreneurial university.

The entrepreneurial university is embedded in regional particularities, which makes it imperative to understand the regional context. The Triple Helix (TH) model of innovation presents a perspective to help understand the relationships and interactions between the government, industry and university (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff 1995). The philosophy behind the model is that in today’s knowledge-based society, the potential for economic development lies in effective government–industry–university interactions that facilitate the production, transfer and application of knowledge (Cai & Etzkowitz 2020).

Wanjiru (2020) found that the linkages between South Africa’s triple helix actors are weak and fragmented, and attributed these weaknesses to the lack of trust, lack of strategic direction, lack of know-how and limited funding. Additionally, Patra and Muchie (2018) identify that the university–industry link, although one of the most vital, is weak in South Africa, and recommend that all TH linkages need to be strengthened. This poses major problems as it creates gaps between TH actors, which limits knowledge transference and mobility, and consequently limits the potential for innovation and business incubation (Kruss & Visser 2017; Paños-Castro et al. 2021). For example, financial institutes and venture capitalists are hesitant to partake in early-stage university–government–industry partnerships. Strong TH links and systematic collaboration with measurable outputs, is vital for regional entrepreneurial outcomes (Miller et al. 2018; Zhou 2008). Promoting university–industry interaction requires a strategic approach that persuades academics of the potential economic and social benefits of industry engagement, such as research funding and greater research impact (Fini et al. 2017; Kruss & Visser 2017). The transference of innovations between university and industry is a complex process; therefore, in adherence to the Intellectual Property Rights Act 51 of 2008, South African universities are required to set up TTOs.

Traditionally, universities have been responsible for the transference of knowledge through education, embodied in human capital, and the advancement of new knowledge through research (Alfalih & Ragmoun 2020). Universities are moving beyond these two mandated missions towards more actively addressing the needs of industry and society. The third mission refers to university activities conducted for the purpose of knowledge transference for socioeconomic development (Compagnucci & Spigarelli 2020). The TTO acts as an interface mechanism between the university and the market and manages the commercialisation processes. Their functions, according to IPR Act 51:40 (1) are ‘the identification, protection, management and commercialisation of intellectual property and in intellectual property transactions’. One major benefit of the TTO is that academics do not necessarily have to compromise on their teachings and research while choosing to engage with commercialisation. Engaging in commercialisation and entrepreneurial activities often requires resources such as funding, expert knowledge and an entrepreneurial culture, which is crucial not only for motivating entrepreneurial action internally but also as a way of attracting partnerships and funding. Entrepreneurial culture in this instance refers to the propensity of the individual to engage in leveraging opportunities towards entrepreneurial outcomes (Foreman-Peck & Zhou 2013).

Researchers have identified several factors that facilitate or hinder academic entrepreneurship (Hayter et al. 2018), which can be broadly categorised into individual, institutional and environmental factors (Guerrero & Urbano 2016). Alternatively, by taking a stage-based approach, the facilitating and inhibiting factors can be categorised into pre-commercialisation phase and commercialisation phase (Miller, McAdam & McAdam 2014; Wood 2011).

Prior to commercialisation, there are various conditions that affect the academic inclination for entrepreneurial engagement (Hayter et al. 2018; Perkmann et al. 2021). Individual factors include; the academics’ awareness of the opportunities and availability of support for commercialisation, individual demographics and culture, which includes personal attitudes, values and beliefs towards commercialisation, the academics’ perceived behavioural control to perform entrepreneurial activities, and the motivation for engaging in commercialisation such as financial rewards, research funding, and personal or professional recognition. Institutional factors such as university culture, resources, incentive structures and university policy may also impact academics’ propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activity.

The commercialisation phase encompasses the actual process of transforming research output into marketable products and can be affected by various facilitating or inhibiting factors (Cullen et al. 2020; Hayter et al. 2018; Perkmann et al. 2021; Urban & Gamata 2020). Factors that may facilitate the commercialisation process include entrepreneurial training and courses, mentors and management support, university TTO, and university incubator. Factors that may hinder academic commercialisation are conflicts of interest, conflicting incentives, time constraints, risk aversion, insufficient funding and bureaucratic hurdles.

The pathway of commercialisation for academic entrepreneurs is heavily influenced by the interplay between individual and institutional factors, as well as the facilitating and inhibiting factors at various stages of the commercialisation process. Ultimately, the commercialisation pathway is a complex and dynamic process, requiring a supportive environment and strategic alignment of resources and initiatives to maximise the potential for successful outcomes.

Data were primarily collected through semi-structured interviews, which followed an interview guide, allowing flexibility for further probing and ensuring that important themes were covered. The interview guide is developed and anchored in research literatures, the TTO, academic entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial university literatures to reflect the latest research knowledge. We adapted questions depending on the type of respondent: TTO managers and executive academic entrepreneurs, faculty and management (see the interview guides in Appendix 1).

The research was conducted at an institutional level with Stellenbosch University being the unit of analysis. Non-probability techniques, namely purposive and snowball sampling, were used to identify the appropriate participants for this study (Suri 2011; Taherdoost 2016). Participants were selected based on their occupation and/or involvement with entrepreneurial activities at SU.

While selecting respondents, we aimed to capture diverse perspectives, to map the ‘overall nature of the pathway of research commercialisation for academic entrepreneurs at SU’. Hence, within the category of academic entrepreneurs, we selected novices and serial entrepreneurs, diverse disciplines and professors, PhDs, Post-doctoral fellows and master students. We also included the TTO perspective, the management and faculty perspective. Interviews (in total 14) were mainly conducted face-to-face, and a few digitally, and lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. The interviews were audio recorded after the participants full informed consent were obtained and transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai. See an overview of informants in Table 1.

To ensure the quality of the data, the breadth and depth of the data set were considered in alignment with the topic area (Reay 2014). The reliability and validity are consistent with the quality criteria for qualitative research according to Lincoln (1995). Credibility was ensured by purposefully selecting respondents who were either academic entrepreneurs or integral to the research commercialisation process at the university. Transferability was ensured by providing contextual detail of the case for the application of findings to similar contexts. Dependability was ensured by documenting and describing the process in relative detail, and confirmability was ensured by sourcing data from multiple sources and verifying findings.

The transcriptions were processed according to thematic analysis, which followed three levels of coding using open, axial and selective coding (Williams & Moser 2019). Open coding was used to identify broad thematic codes, which were later condensed through axial coding by identifying and grouping relatable codes. Based on selective coding, the identified themes were plotted according to an a priori process perspective. The coding and theme development process is depicted in Appendix 2. This portrayed the relationships between themes, as well as helped to identify missing data from the value chain. Additionally, the data were interpreted considering the broader context, thereby not viewing entrepreneurial activities in isolation but as part of an interconnected system.

Research is an important aspect of an academic’s traditional three-point agenda, which is to educate, produce research and enhance positive societal impact. The primary interest is the academic entrepreneur, therefore, the focus is limited to research output. Research output can primarily take two formats, publication or commercialisation, and while publication enjoys the merit as a metric by which academics are rated, there is a growing pressure for the commercialisation of research. Commercialisation should be conducted under the protection of intellectual property. For the commercialisation of research, two conditions must be met: firstly, the academic must have an appetite for it, and secondly, the viability of the opportunity. It is evident that there is a desire to translate research into a more impactful form. Foxtrot (AE) states the following:

Market-pull forces and contact with the TTO and incubator have contributed to the choice to commercialise research output. It is unclear whether earlier exposure to the TTO would have made a difference, with Foxtrot (AE) stating ‘I think no, I wonder if it would have made a difference. I think my mindset was maybe not in that direction yet’. However, Foxtrot (AE) does believe that learning about innovation and commercialisation earlier could have made a difference, adding ‘I think that’s what is making all of us reluctant, because it’s certainly new to us’. Foxtrot (AE) continues by saying:

Foxtrot acknowledges that earlier exposure to commercialisation and innovation could have shaped his or her mindset towards being more open to alternative outcomes of research output. Furthermore, such a mindset could change the nature of the research output – because now it is aligned with application and social impact, not discipline-specific.

In some cases, the researcher is aware of the alternative outcomes from the research output. According to Golf (AE):

Exposure to other academic entrepreneurs and the impact they had through the commercialisation of their research output has created a sensitivity towards the potential value of commercialising research. This impact-driven and market potential sensitivity, along with the experience of the professor who had successfully spun out a company, is what lead to engaging with the TTO for commercialisation. Golf (AE) recognises that research can have a greater impact when the research output is transferable, to the market or industry. Golf (AE) elaborates:

Golf (AE) expresses that only once research output is of transferrable nature, its application will extend beyond purely academic uses, thereby increasing the value that it adds. This requires research to be angled towards a specific market or problem. Evaluation of the viability of commercialisation of research requires some form of business acumen, which is not expected to be part of an academic’s natural forte, in the words of Foxtrot (AE):

Academics are generally not expected to be commercially or market-orientated, however, in other cases, the ability to identify commercial value from research output was attributed to the exposure to an entrepreneurial environment earlier in the researcher’s life. According to Bravo (FM):

Growing up in an entrepreneurial-oriented family has exposed Bravo (FM) to various entrepreneurial activities. This exposure has normalised entrepreneurship and given the researcher a sense of the value of the commercialisation process and how to identify commercial value in research output.

Identifying the commercial value of research raises concerns about the balance between publishing and patenting. Traditionally, academics pursue publication as an outcome of research output. According to Foxtrot (AE):

This is reflected strongly in the data as most academics mentioned the publish or perish challenge. Furthermore, what was interesting was the lack of awareness surrounding the commercialising of research.

Findings gathered from the voices of faculty and lecturers reveal that cultivating an entrepreneurial mindset within the university is essential in raising awareness and facilitating the successful commercialisation of research. Papa (FM) explains that their mandate is to enhance entrepreneurship through teaching and research, but extends by stating:

This sentiment underscores the need for the university to not only impart subject matter expertise but also foster a proactive and resourceful mentality among their constituents. By doing so, they can better prepare students and researchers to navigate the complex process of turning their research into marketable products or services.

Awareness of commercialisation refers to the awareness of the possibility to commercialise research output and the awareness of the potential benefits to be realised from commercialisation for all the possible stakeholders. From the analysis of the data, four modes of commercialisation awareness are identified: an organic mode, role models, prior exposure to entrepreneurship, and networking (with spillover effect).

Organic mode: The organic mode refers to direct exposure to the notion of commercialisation in the natural setting of the work environment, but in an informal way. This organic or informal mode of awareness of commercialisation is evident in the case based on the response of India (TTO):

Role model: It was found that most academics were also made aware of the option for commercialisation through role models, where supervisors, mentors and colleagues were the main sources. For example, according to Golf (AE):

Golf (AE) was inspired by his or her role model, a fellow professor and study leader, whose applied research created awareness of the opportunities for greater social impact through commercialisation. Through establishing a presence in the faculties through direct engagement with academics, the TTO raises awareness of research commercialisation possibilities and becomes aware of research projects with the potential for commercialisation. This is corroborated by Delta (AE):

Prior exposure to entrepreneurship activity is evident in the comment earlier by Bravo (AE) that an early exposure to entrepreneurship provides sensitivity to the realisation of the value of commercialisation.

Networking: In other cases, awareness of commercialisation opportunities was established earlier in the researcher’s career. According to Hotel (AE):

It was interesting to find that there is a lack of awareness of the institutional and regional benefits of engaging with commercialisation. At a micro level, the researcher benefits by access to funding for continued research, the use of university infrastructure and equipment, and access to an innovation pipeline. The regional benefits include job creation, increased competition, new innovations, increased investments and improved overall standard of living.

Following the vision of a knowledge region, India (TTO) explained the regional benefits of commercialisation:

India (TTO) explains the spillover benefits that the university can gain from when academics engage with commercialisation. Even though this does not have a direct impact on the researcher, the institutional benefits enable the university to provide more support. These benefits include access to funding, networks and partnerships, and enhanced reputation.

In support of entrepreneurship and the commercialisation of research output, the university has a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, it instituted mechanisms to support commercialisation in the form of the TTO (Innovus), and an incubator (Launchlab), and on the other, it promotes an enabling environment for research and strives to attract innovative talent.

According to Juliet (TTO):

The LaunchLab (LL) was created in 2013 as an incubator to help the TTO spin out companies by providing business support. Referring to the business support provided by LL, Foxtrot (AE) states the following:

It was found that the TTO specifically focuses on providing legal support. According to Golf (AE):

The data reflect a strong presence of legal-oriented support. India (TTO) provides a potential explanation for this by stating:

The focus on legal support is underpinned by the need to protect IP not only because it is required by law but also to retain the value and potential outcomes within the institution and region. Even though support mechanisms are available, several factors were hampering the academics from taking advantage of commercialising research. These can be categorised into factors hampering research commercialisation and factors hampering partnering with the university for commercialisation.

This category of factors is not influenced by which route the researcher chooses for commercialisation and reflects the general factors hampering willingness to engage. These factors are the lack of time and key performance indicators (KPIs).

The data show that academics perceive the lack of time as a major challenge for engagement. According to Foxtrot (AE):

There is a general understanding that academics can spend 20% of their time on alternative activities. This raises concerns about whether the amount of ‘available time’ is sufficient for commercial engagement. According to Bravo (FM):

Bravo (FM) admits that the benefits gained from commercialising research are not worth the time it requires. Furthermore, Delta acknowledges that academia is his or her expertise, not business, making the situation challenging. Delta continues by stating:

In addition to publications being part of academics’ KPIs, most academics enjoy their research role. Not being able to do so may impede the willingness to engage in commercialisation. India (TTO) explains the challenge that academics face:

For academics, balancing research publication and research commercialisation is challenging, especially because only one of them is a KPI. The next category of factors is related to when the academic chooses to partner with the university for research commercialisation.

The factors that discourage this partnership are the university capital structure, IP ownership, and incentive and/or rewards. When research output is patented and licenced, the university gives a fair compensation portion of the amount to the researcher(s). According to Bravo (FM):

The capital structure was a major factor that negatively affected the academic’s willingness to partner with the university. According to Echo (AE):

Researchers invest a lot of time and effort into their research and wish to have a larger share of ownership of their intellectual property. Yet, because of university policy, researchers are obliged to spin-out from the university. According to India (TTO):

Evidently, a few respondents in our study (Echo, AE and Bravo, FM), reflected this internal friction, and found the TTO support and guidance to be poor compared with the university’s large portion of their IP. According to Bravo (FM):

Our data revealed some degree of internal friction at SU with respect to rewards and incentives encouraging researchers to disclose ideas and to pursue the commercialisation route. Researchers who pursued academic entrepreneurship recognised the value of translation and social impact and had a drive to create new companies and knowledge-intensive workplaces. But the workload in addition to academic obligations were substantial, and for a few, sharing the IP ownership with the university, was not perceived as a fair share. Yet, many of the academic entrepreneurs acknowledged the TTO and Launch lab’s contribution in the process of commercialisation, including patenting, legal work, funding and market orientation of the research technology. The TTO on the other side, acknowledged the friction and difficulties for researchers to pursue commercialisation, and they aimed to establish trusting relationships with researchers conveying their competence, support and added value. Yet, the TTO role is challenging and requires an intricate balancing between legal frameworks (IPR Act 51), researchers interests and market and industry requirements.