Identifying and Prioritization Institutional Factors Influencing on Choosing Academic Researches Commercialization Strategies in Nanotechnology

Document Type : Research Paper


1 M.S. Student, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Tehran University, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof., Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Tehran University, Iran.


Locating in the world’s twelfth position in nano-science production, Islamic Republic of Iran can achieve a suitable place in the commercialization and wealth creation of nanotechnology. This research aims to identify and prioritize institutional factors influence choosing of academic researches commercialization strategy in nanotechnology. This research is applicable from purpose point of view and is qualitative - quantitative from point of data collection. The statistical population of the qualitative research part are academic experts and of quantitative part are companies active in nanotechnology. Data collection was conducted through interviews in qualitative part and through questionnaire in quantitative part, and also data analysis methods were primary, open, axial and selective coding in qualitative part and confirmatory factor analysis and paired comparison in quantitative part. The findings show that six institutional factors affect choosing academic research commercialization strategies for nanotechnology in Iran which are history background and contracts of university, university culture, supporting institutions, university goals and missions, university’s social capital and university policies in priority order. The six factors have been identified and prioritized in 20 sub-factors


Allen R. Kathleen, (2003), “Bringing New Technology to Market”, Prentice Hall, New Jersy.
Etzkowitz, H., (2000); “Research groups as „quasi-firms‟: the invention of the entrepreneurial university”; Research Policy; Vol.32: pp 109–21.
Ghazinoori, Seyyed Reza, “Strategies and trends for commercialization and marketing of high technologies Case study: Nanotechnology in Iran”, 2nd Management of Technology Iranian Conference, 2005. (In Persian)
Hall, P. A., Taylor, C. R., (1996), “There new institutionalism, Political Studies”, Vol.64, pp.936-957.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H., 2003, “Entrepreneurial Transformation in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers university of Technology”, Research Policy, 32(9), pp.1555-1568.
Nealy, M. S. (2004). “The Budget Plan of Canada”, P. 133, [Online] Available:
North, D., (1990), “Institutions, Institutional change and economic performance”, Cambridge University Press.
O’Shea, Rory P., Chugh, Harveen, Allen, Thomas J., (2008), “determinants and consequences of university spinoffs activity: a conceptual framework”, J Techno Transfer, 33: 653-666.
O’shea, R., Thomas, J. A., Colm, O., Frank, R., (2004), “Universities and Technology Transfer: A Review of Academic Entrepreneurship Literature”, Irish Journal of Management.
Owen-Smith, J. and Powell, W.W., 2003, “Expanding Role of University Patenting in the Life Science: Assessing the Importance of Experience and Connectivity”, Research Policy, 32(9), pp. 1695-1711.
Palmberg, Christopher, Denirs, Helene, Miguet, Claire, (2009), “Nanotechnology, An Overview Based on Indicators and Statistics”, OECD, STI working paper.
Slaughter, S. and Laslie, L., (1997), “AcademicCapitalism”, Baltimore London, The Johns Hopkins University press.
Spilling, O.R., 2004; “Commercialisation of knowledge–conceptual framework”; 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business (NCSB) Research.
Umum, K.K., Dhewanto, W., Larso, D., 2008, “Higher education institution and technology transfer”, AGSE, pp. 461-474.
Veblen, T. B., (1919), “The Place of Science in Modern Civilasation and Other Essays”, New York: Huesch.
Wright, M., Muster, P., Colombo, M., (2009), “Dynamics of Science Based Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 35, No. 1, PP. 1-15.