Based on the study of the literature and the systematic analysis of the existing literature, the paper constructs a two-stage academic entrepreneurial behavior integrated model of intention formation and behavior transformation based on the Theory of Planned Behavior（TPB）. Firstly, the paper clarifies the concept and actors of academic entrepreneurship. It holds that academic entrepreneurship is a kind of practice that aims to transfer knowledge between academic institutions（including universities and scientific research institutions）and external social environment, so as to create economic and social value for external participants and academic faculty. In addition, at least one academic faculty acts as the main participant in academic entrepreneurship. Academic entrepreneurship includes eight forms and can be divided into two categories: commercial and non-commercial academic entrepreneurial activities. The actors of academic entrepreneurship consist of two levels: individual and organizational. This paper talks about the individual level actor. Secondly, focusing on the academic entrepreneurial intention, the paper constructs a two-stage conceptual framework and the integrated model of academic entrepreneurial behavior based on TPB. Through the systematic review and analysis of the existing literature, the paper argues that, in the formation stage of academic entrepreneurial intention, academic entrepreneurial intention is affected by attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavior control; in the transformation stage of academic entrepreneurial behavior, the transformation from academic entrepreneurial intention to actual entrepreneurial behavior needs the activation and adjustment of contextual factors and personal characteristics factors. Lastly, the paper summarizes the research and the future prospects. It analyzes the functioning paths influencing academic entrepreneurial intention and the internal relationship between the influencing factors, and sums up the contextual factors and personal characteristics factors that can activate and adjust the transformation of the academic faculty from the entrepreneurial intention to the actual entrepreneurial behavior, which provides a theoretical reference and basis for further revealing the moderating paths from academic entrepreneurial intention to behavior. Future research needs to be improved in the following aspects: continue to deepen the research on the mechanism of academic entrepreneurial behavior path, accelerate the empirical test of the integrated model, and enrich and expand the research on the influencing factors of different forms of academic entrepreneurial activities.
From Intention to Behavior: An Integrated Model of Academic Entrepreneurial Behavior Based on Theory of Planned Behavior
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 42, Issue 07, pp. 64 - 81 (2020) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20200416.401
 Abreu M, Grinevich V. The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities[J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(2): 408-422.
 Abreu M, Grinevich V. Academic entrepreneurship in the creative arts[J]. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 2014, 32(3): 451-470.
 Algieri B, Aquino A, Succurro M. Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2013, 38(4): 382-400.
 Avnimelech G, Feldman M P. The stickiness of university spin–offs: A study of formal and informal spin–offs and their location from 124 US academic institutions[J]. International Journal of Technology Management, 2015, 68(1-2): 122-149.
 Banes A J. Out of academics: Education, entrepreneurship and enterprise[J]. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2013, 41(9): 1926-1938.
 Bernstein A T, Carayannis E G. Exploring the value proposition of the undergraduate entrepreneurship major and elective based on student self-efficacy and outcome expectations[J]. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2012, 3(3): 265-279.
 Boehm D N, Hogan T. “A jack of all trades”: The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2014, 39(1): 134-149.
 Bristow M R, Leinwand L A, Olson E N. Entrepreneurialism in the translational biologic sciences: Why, how, and however[J]. JACC: Basic to Translational Science, 2018, 3(1): 1-8.
 Cantaragiu R. Towards a conceptual delimitation of academic entrepreneurship[J]. Management & Marketing, 2012, 7(4): 683-700.
 Chang C W, Yuan R, Chen J K. Social support and depression among Chinese adolescents: The mediating roles of self-esteem and self-efficacy[J]. Children and Youth Services Review, 2018, 88: 128-134.
 Eesley C E, Miller W F. Impact: Stanford university’s economic impact via innovation and entrepreneurship[J]. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2018, 14(2): 130-278.
 Feola R, Vesci M, Botti A, et al. The determinants of entrepreneurial intention of young researchers: Combining the theory of planned behavior with the triple helix model[J]. Journal of Small Business Management, 2019, 57(4): 1424-1443.
 Fernández-Pérez V, Alonso-Galicia P E, Del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes M, et al. Business social networks and academics’ entrepreneurial intentions[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2014, 114(2): 292-320.
 Fernández-Pérez V, Alonso-Galicia P E, Rodríquez-Ariza L, et al. Professional and personal social networks: A bridge to entrepreneurship for academics?[J]. European Management Journal, 2015, 33(1): 37-47.
 Fogelberg H, Lundqvist M A. Integration of academic and entrepreneurial roles: The case of nanotechnology research at Chalmers University of Technology[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2013, 40(1): 127-139.
 Fritsch M, Krabel S. Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2012, 37(3): 271-296.
 Goethner M, Obschonka M, Silbereisen R K, et al. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2012, 33(3): 628-641.
 Grimm H M, Jaenicke J. What drives patenting and commercialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2012, 37(4): 454-477.
 Guerrero M, Urbano D. Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship[J]. Small Business Economics, 2014, 43(1): 57-74.
 Halilem N, Amara N, Olmos-Peñuela J, et al. “To Own, or not to Own?” A multilevel analysis of intellectual property right policies’ on academic entrepreneurship[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1479-1489.
 Heblich S, Slavtchev V. Parent universities and the location of academic startups[J]. Small Business Economics, 2014, 42(1): 1-15.
 Jung H, Kim B K. Determinant factors of university spin-off: The case of Korea[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2018, 43(6): 1631-1646.
 Kalar B, Antoncic B. The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries[J]. Technovation, 2015, 36-37: 1-11.
 Karlsson T, Wigren C. Start-ups among university employees: The influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2012, 37(3): 297-312.
 Kauppinen I. A moral economy of patents: Case of Finnish research universities' patent policies[J]. Studies in Higher Education, 2014, 39(10): 1732-1749.
 Kolvereid L. Preference for self-employment: Prediction of new business start-up intentions and efforts[J]. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2016, 17(2): 100-109.
 Libaers D, Wang T. Foreign-born academic scientists: Entrepreneurial academics or academic entrepreneurs?[J]. R&D Management, 2012, 42(3): 254-272.
 Miranda F J, Chamorro-Mera A, Rubio S. Academic entrepreneurship in Spanish universities: An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intention[J]. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 2017, 23(2): 113-122.
 Mosey S, Wright M, Clarysse B. Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2012, 36(3): 587-607.
 Rasmussen E, Gulbrandsen M. Government support programmes to promote academic entrepreneurship: A principal–agent perspective[J]. European Planning Studies, 2012, 20(4): 527-546.
 Sampedro I R, Fernández-Laviada A, Crespo A H. Entrepreneurial intention: Perceived advantages and disadvantages[J]. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 2014, 27(2): 284-315.
 Styhre A. Coping with the financiers: Attracting venture capital investors and end-users in the biomaterials industry[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2014, 26(7): 797-809.
 Tartari V, Breschi S. Set them free: Scientists' evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2012, 21(5): 1117-1147.
 Tartari V, Salter A, D’Este P. Crossing the Rubicon: Exploring the factors that shape academics’ perceptions of the barriers to working with industry[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2012, 36(3): 655-677.
 Thungjaroenkul P, Cummings G G, Tate K. Testing the social cognitive career theory in Thai nurse’ interest to become nurse educators: A structural equation modeling analysis[J]. Nurse Education Today, 2016, 44: 151-156.
Cite this article
Wang Ji, Geng Jiannan, Xiao Yujia. From Intention to Behavior: An Integrated Model of Academic Entrepreneurial Behavior Based on Theory of Planned Behavior[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2020, 42(7): 64-81.
Previous: Killing or Pushing: The Effect of Stock Liquidity on Innovation Investment of SME—A Comparative Study between NEEQ and GEM