Small Bus Econ
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00861-4
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic
entrepreneurship: the effects of immigration status
Haneul Choi · Donald S. Siegel ·
David A. Waldman · Ashlee Frandell ·
Joohyung Kim
Accepted: 28 November 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023
Abstract University scientists have been strongly
encouraged by administrators to engage in academic
entrepreneurship (AE), via patenting, licensing, and
startup formation. AE is a key aspect of the rise
of “entrepreneurial universities” as discussed by
(Guerrero & Urbano, Journal of Technology Trans-
fer, 37(1), 43–74, 2012). We examine the relation-
ship between role conflict and scientists’ propensity
to engage in AE. Our model starts with the realiza-
tion that academics contemplating AE struggle with
multiple identities as scientists and entrepreneurs
and different roles. We hypothesize that foreign-
born scientists are more adept at developing an
entrepreneurial identity and managing role conflict,
which makes them more likely to engage in AE than
their domestic counterparts. Our empirical results,
based on data from 391 scientists at 25 US research
H. Choi
School of Management, University of Bristol, Bristol,
United Kingdom
D. S. Siegel (*) · A. Frandell
School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University,
Phoenix, AZ, USA
e-mail: Donald.Siegel.1@asu.edu
D. S. Siegel
Global Center for Technology Transfer, Arizona State
University, Phoenix, United States
D. A. Waldman · J. Kim
W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA
universities, confirm that foreign-born scientists are
well-positioned for AE and that engagement in AE
mediates the positive impact of foreign-born status
on entrepreneurial identity. The results imply that a
more open immigration policy will generate higher
levels of AE.
Plain English Summary University scientists
have been strongly encouraged by administrators to
engage in academic entrepreneurship (AE), via pat-
enting, licensing, and startup formation. AE is a key
aspect of the rise of “entrepreneurial universities.”
We examine the relationship between role conflict
and scientists’ propensity to engage in AE. Our model
starts with the realization that academics contemplat-
ing AE struggle with multiple identities as scientists
D. A. Waldman
Global Center for Technology Transfer, Arizona State
University, Phoenix, United States
A. Frandell
School of Public Policy and Leadership, UNLV,
Las Vegas, United States
J. Kim
Department of Management, City University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong, China
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

and entrepreneurs and different roles. We hypothesize
that foreign-born scientists are more adept at devel-
oping an entrepreneurial identity and managing role
conflict, which makes them more likely to engage in
AE than their domestic counterparts. Our empirical
results, based on data from 391 scientists at 25 US
research universities, confirm that foreign-born scien-
tists are well-positioned for AE and that engagement
in AE mediates the positive impact of foreign-born
status on entrepreneurial identity. The results imply
that a more open immigration policy will generate
higher levels of AE.
Keywords Academic entrepreneurship · Role
conflict · Entrepreneurial identity · University
patents · University licenses · University startups ·
Entrepreneurial universities
JEL Classification L26 · M13 · O31 · O32 · O38
1 Introduction
In recent years, scientists and engineers at research
universities have been strongly encouraged by uni-
versity administrators to engage in academic entre-
preneurship, or the transfer of university-based tech-
nology via patenting, licensing, and startup formation
(Link et al., 2015, Siegel et al., 2003a, b). These pres-
sures have emerged from the rise of technology trans-
fer and widespread adoption of the “entrepreneurial
university” model (Guerrero et al., 2015; Urbano
& Guerrero, 2013). As noted in Guerrero and Pugh
(2022) and Siegel and Guerrero (2021), recent gov-
ernmental responses to the pandemic have severely
disrupted the model of the entrepreneurial university,
which depends heavily on in-person activity. At the
same time, there are strategic challenges faced by uni-
versities, such as the need to develop new measures
of the economic impact of university research, the
rise of entrepreneurship education and other entrepre-
neurial initiatives at the university, and the develop-
ment of entrepreneurial ecosystems on campus and
in the surrounding region of the university (Cunning-
ham & Miller, 2021; Forliano et al., 2021; Klofsten
et al., 2019).
These strategic challenges have important mana-
gerial and public policy implications, given that
most research conducted by university scientists and
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
H. Choi et al.
engineers (henceforth referred to as university sci-
entists) is publicly funded (Choi et al., 2022). Even
though technology transfer from universities is a
way to enhance the social return to public invest-
ment in the science (Link & Scott, 2019), it has not
been viewed as a primary role of university scien-
tists. Instead, research (e.g., publication and obtaining
grants) and teaching remain the traditional, primary
roles of university scientists (Balven et al., 2018;
Lam, 2011). The perceived tension or role conflict
between the traditional role centered around teach-
ing and research and the relatively new role which
emphasizes the scientists’ engagement with entrepre-
neurial activities can be a major barrier to university
scientists’ efforts to pursue technology transfer (Bru-
neel et al., 2010; Philpott et al., 2011).
In this paper, we suggest that one potential route
that makes role conflict a major barrier to academic
entrepreneurship is the manner through which it
shapes how scientists understand and identify them-
selves in relation to entrepreneurial activities. The
understanding of self in a role or role identity (Ash-
forth, 2000a, b) has received considerable attention
from academic entrepreneurship researchers. As sug-
gested and demonstrated by identity literature, indi-
viduals who increasingly take on multiple roles inevi-
tably experience role conflict, and it causes threats to
their identity potentially leading to a negative perfor-
mance at work (Adler & Adler, 1987; Mohr & Puck,
2007). Therefore, when individuals face role con-
flict, they try to actively manage it by, for instance,
negotiating their roles through re-interpretation of
their identity or identity work (Clark & Geppert,
2011; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Horton et al., 2014;
Petriglieri, 2011). In the context of academic entre-
preneurship and university technology transfer, the
conflict perceived by university scientists between the
traditional role and the relatively new role of entre-
preneurship may affect the degree to which university
scientists understand themselves as entrepreneur or
their entrepreneurial identity.
Several studies of academic entrepreneurship have
shed light on the importance of the identity of uni-
versity scientists, as it relates to technology transfer
and the entrepreneurial university. The studies inves-
tigated the way university scientists engage in intra-
individual negotiation of the role identities in the face
of competing norms of science and research com-
mercialization and discussed the potential outcomes
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
of such identity negotiation (Jain et al., 2009; Lam,
2010, 2011; Welsh et al., 2008). The studies have
investigated “how” individual scientists engage in
identity work to formulate entrepreneurial identity
by illustrating the identity work process (see: Jain
et al., 2009; Lam, 2010). Such research provides a lot
of insight into the identity negotiation process, as it
sheds greater light on how individual scientists make
sense of entrepreneurial activities in association with
their role as university scientists under the assump-
tion that greater entrepreneurial identity leads to
strong entrepreneurial intention and behaviors. How-
ever, most studies do not provide generalizable infor-
mation regarding the antecedents and consequences
of entrepreneurial identity, given that they are mostly
qualitative (Almeida et al., 2017).
In this paper, we assess the antecedents of entre-
preneurial identity in university technology transfer.
Specifically, we focus on the following variables as
potential determinants of entrepreneurial identity:
role conflict, foreign-born status, and prior technol-
ogy transfer engagement. Specifically, we make the
following assertions about these variables: (1) role
conflict perceived by university scientists negatively
affects the salience of their entrepreneurial identity;
(2) foreign-born status of university scientists miti-
gates this negative effect; (3) that foreign-born scien-
tists are more likely to engage in technology transfer
than their domestic counterparts; and (4) that prior
technology transfer engagement enhances the salience
of entrepreneurial identity of university scientists.
Our focus on the foreign-born status of scientists in
the context of entrepreneurial identity formation, role
conflict, and university technology transfer is novel,
both theoretically and empirically, in two respects.
First, we analyze the link between role conflict and
identity formation, in order to explain how role con-
flict affects the degree to which scientists select entre-
preneurial identity as part of their self. Second, we
shed light on the potential cognitive benefits of the
immigration process and theorize how the most suc-
cessful immigrant scientists in top research universi-
ties are likely to be more adept at dealing with role
conflict. Our study adds to the scholarly conversation
of role of immigrant scientists in technology commer-
cialization and could have important managerial and
public policy implications, in terms of efforts to pro-
mote academic entrepreneurship.
The next section describes our theoretical reason-
ing and concomitant hypotheses. Next, we describe
our data and research methods. This is followed by
our findings and conclusions.
2 Theoretical model and hypotheses
2.1 Role conflict and entrepreneurial identity of
university scientists
Identity is defined as a socially constructed under-
standing of self, which is shaped through the cues
from a given role that contains unique goals, values,
norms, beliefs, and social interactions (Ashforth
et al., 2000). The core of identity is how individuals
categorize or themselves as an occupant of a role
and how they incorporate the meanings and expec-
tations that come with the role and role performance
(Ashforth, 2000a, b; Burke & Tully, 1977; Thoits,
1986). Note that we differentiate between role and
role identity. While a role is an external component
that is imposed on individuals, role identity is the
internalized component of the role (Burke & Tully,
1977). In other words, role identity is the outcome
of an individual’s interpretation of a given role
along with socially constructed elements of the role
(MacCall & Simmons, 1978). Therefore, even when
exactly the same role is imposed on individuals, the
role identity of the individual or the degree to which
the individual identifies themselves with the role
may differ as individual perception as well as expe-
rience of the role varies.
Role identity motivates individuals to plan and
perform roles to reinforce, support, and confirm the
identity fulfilling responsibilities and expectations
that emerge from the roles that individuals assume
(Burke, 1991; Burke & Reitzes, 1981; Stets & Burke,
2000; Thoits, 1986). It is a set of meanings and a
frame of reference embedded in a role that enables
individuals to understand who they are and evaluate
their current and potential actions. As suggested by
Callero (1985), “role identities, by definition, imply
action” (p. 205). Since individuals assess their behav-
iors with the same frame of reference that lies in one’s
understanding of the identity, the variations in role
performance can be predicted by the variations in role
identities (Burke & Reitzes, 1981; Callero, 1985). In
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

other words, role identity matters in terms of predict-
ing individual behavior.
Entrepreneurship has been defined as a process
involving a set of purposeful actions to discover,
evaluate, and exploit opportunities to create goods
and services (Shane & Cable, 2002; Shane & Ven-
kataraman, 2000). It refers to the pursuit of devel-
oping solutions to challenges including the creation
and development of products and services (Knight,
1997). Entrepreneurial identity can be understood as
an internalization of entrepreneurship processes as
well as its norms. Therefore, entrepreneurial identity
can be defined as a latent occupational concept or
role of oneself (Pihkala & Vesalainen, 1999). We pro-
pose that university scientists may select to engage in
entrepreneurial activities such as patenting, licensing,
and creation of startups and thus establish their iden-
tity as entrepreneurs. However, they do so in a con-
text with competing demands or more traditional role
requirements, including basic research and teaching
which may lead to role conflict when they consider
entrepreneurial activities (Balven et al., 2018).
Extant research defines role conflict as a condition
where incompatible roles are imposed on an individ-
ual (Adler & Adler, 1987; Rizzo et al., 1970). Role
conflict affects one’s identity formation and the extent
to which they internalize organizational norms and
expectations. When competing demands are imposed
and when the focal individual is not able to integrate
the conflicting demands, they can experience cogni-
tive strain and perform less effectively (Rizzo et al.,
1970). Facing a greater role conflict, individuals try
to make resolutions by employing different strate-
gies such as “realigning, reducing, or in extreme
cases, dropping” certain roles in order to decrease the
importance of a role to their identity (Adler & Adler,
1987, p. 451). In the context of academic entrepre-
neurship, university scientists who are contemplat-
ing entrepreneurial activities struggle with multiple
roles such as researching and teaching. The relatively
less traditional role of entrepreneurship might pose
conflict regrading time, resources, skill-sets, and
demands of others (e.g., one’s immediate supervisor),
incongruent behaviors (e.g., the pursuit of basic vs.
more applied research), and policies/guidelines (e.g.,
promotion and tenure systems that dictate publication
and grants, rather than technology transfer) causing
significant cognitive strain to the scientists who con-
sider entrepreneurial activities.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
H. Choi et al.
Applying the role conflict and identity literature to
the context of academic entrepreneurship, we propose
that academics who consider entrepreneurial activi-
ties and experience role conflict between their role as
university scientist and entrepreneurial activities may
decide to reduce entrepreneurial identity in order to
minimize the cognitive constraint. As suggested by
literature, individuals may drop a less significant role
to their self-concept when they experience severe role
conflict (Adler & Adler, 1987). We expect that role
conflict experienced by university scientists may hurt
their entrepreneurial identity because as faculty mem-
bers, their primary professorial roles are research and
teaching. Accordingly, it is not easy for them to dis-
engage from these traditional roles. Therefore, it will
be easier for them to disengage from entrepreneur-
ship and identify less as an entrepreneur compared
to neglecting the primary role as university faculty
when they face role conflict. In other words, because
research and teaching are the primary roles of aca-
demics, perceptions of role conflict that are centered
around the entrepreneurial role will lower one’s iden-
tity as an entrepreneur. Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1: Role conflict is negatively associated with the
entrepreneurial identity of university scientists.
2.2 Foreign‑born status, role conflict, and
entrepreneurial identity
We propose that foreign-born scientists may address
role conflict in a manner that is different from their
domestic peers for the following reasons. The first
reason is that immigrants may have potential cogni-
tive advantages associated with biculturalism and
multilingualism such as cognitive and integrative
flexibility (Barac & Bialystok, 2011; Bialystok &
Majumder, 1998; Christmas & Barker, 2014; Doug-
las Mepham & Martinovic, 2018; Ritter et al., 2012;
Spiegler & Leyendecker, 2017). Cognitive flexibility
refers to an individual ability to shift between dif-
ferent sets of tasks and mentality potentially leading
to goal-directed behaviors and creative solutions to
problems (Best & Miller, 2010; Miyake et al., 2000).
Research suggests that the cognitive advantages of
multicultural experience or multilingualism enable
individuals to cope with tasks that involve conflict
better than those who do not have such advantages
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
when conflict is defined as disagreement or incompat-
ibility between two or multiple things derived from
conflicting and incompatible representations (Fest-
man & Münte, 2012).
Research that associates multiculturalism and mul-
tilingualism with cognitive flexibility indicates that
cognitive advantages of multicultural background are
not limited to linguistic measures of individual per-
formances but may be generalizable to other tasks
(Nicoladis et al., 2018). Specifically, research based
on acculturation complexity model (see: Tadmor &
Tetlock, 2006) proposes a theoretical link between
an individual’s interaction with two cultures and the
development of cognitive advantages. According
to the model, continued attempts to resolve cultural
discrepancies through acculturation promote cogni-
tive and integrative complexity as the focal individ-
ual acknowledges, accepts, and integrates competing
demands and perspectives during the acculturation
process (Spiegler & Leyendecker, 2017; Tadmor &
Tetlock, 2006). Acculturation, which is defined as
a process through which immigrants psychologi-
cally react and adapt to the new social reality in the
new country, forces individuals to resolve conflicts
between their culture of origin and the one of the host
nation (Berry, 1990, 1997). In other words, the accul-
turation process force individuals to continuously
train themselves to integrate potentially conflicting
norms embedded in different cultures.
Drawing and extending the findings of the multi-
culturalism research to the context of this research,
we conjecture that foreign-born scientists and domes-
tic-born scientists may experience and address role
conflict differently. Given that foreign-born scientists
are much more likely to be exposed to different lin-
guistic and/or cultural elements, they may be more
likely to have an ability to harmonize cross-cultural
differences and a greater adeptness at juggling poten-
tially conflicting roles they encounter prescribed by
different cultures. This conjecture can be more rea-
sonable considering that it is not possible for foreign
scientists to get a position in competitive American
research institutes without understanding and inte-
grating the dominant culture and norms of the USA
through the acculturation process. Accordingly, for-
eign-born scientists in leading US research univer-
sities may be more used to confronting and dealing
with cross-cultural role conflict, thus allowing both
their home and new cultures to co-exist. We expect
that this ability to integrate non-work, cross-cultural
roles will coincide with greater adeptness at juggling
potentially conflicting work goals, thus lowering the
relationship between work role conflict and entrepre-
neurial identity for foreign-born scientists.
Additionally, foreign-born scientists may be bet-
ter positioned to manage the role conflict that they
encounter at work compared to their domestic-born
peers, because foreign-born scientists who work
at top research institutes are likely to be success-
ful immigrants who went through multiple, intense
screening processes. Given that foreign-born scien-
tists who work at top research institutes are likely to
be more successful immigrants who survived multi-
ple, intense screening processes and it is more chal-
lenging for immigrants to obtain a tenure track fac-
ulty position at top US research institutes, they may
have a higher level of research skills and exert more
effort to outperform their peers. As such, they may be
better positioned to address the problems arising from
role conflict that they encounter thus allowing that
role conflict to have a smaller effect on them when
considering entrepreneurial activities.
Please note that we are not suggesting that foreign-
born scientists experience a smaller degree of role
conflict. What we are suggesting and theorizing about
is that the immigration experience requires cogni-
tive flexibility and thus, they are likely to handle the
perceived role conflict and its negative consequences
somewhat better than their domestic peers.
To summarize, we expect that foreign-born sci-
entists who have gone through successful accultura-
tion and hence obtained tenured track positions at top
US research universities are more adept at, and bet-
ter positioned to, deal with the role conflict that they
may experience, as compared to their domestic coun-
terparts. Accordingly, they will better manage role
conflict and be less influenced by it, thus minimizing
the effect that role conflict may have in terms of their
identification with entrepreneurship. Therefore, we
hypothesize:
H2: Foreign-born status will moderate the nega-
tive effect of role conflict (that is centered around
entrepreneurial demands) on the entrepreneurial
identity of scientists in top research universities,
such that the effect will be less for scientists who
are foreign-born.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

2.3 Foreign‑born status, technology transfer
engagement, and entrepreneurial identity
A number of research have assessed whether foreign-
born scientists outperform their domestic-born coun-
terparts in terms of research and research commer-
cialization outcomes. Such assessment studies present
somewhat mixed findings regarding the research and
research commercialization performance of the immi-
grants as compared to the domestic-born peers. On
the one hand, there is a general agreement that for-
eign-born scientists have contributed a lot to the US
science and engineering fields, making disproportion-
ate contribution to the fields. Research has demon-
strated that foreign-born scientists outperform domes-
tic-born scientists in terms of research outcomes
measured by number of scientific articles, conference
papers, number of grants, and patents (Corley & Sab-
harwal, 2007; Kim et al., 2012; Krabel et al., 2012;
Libaers & Wang, 2012a; Stephan & Levin, 2001;
Walsh, 2015). Additionally, research also suggests
that high-skilled immigrants, although not necessarily
academic scientists, are more likely than comparable
non-immigrants to patent or to launch a new company
(Blume-Kohout, 2016a, b; Hunt, 2011; Kerr & Lin-
coln, 2010; Pekkala Kerr & Kerr, 2020).
On the other hand, some research indicates that
foreign-born scientists may have some disadvan-
tages compared to their domestic-born peers which
can potentially limit their ability to fully realize the
commercial potential of research. Their limited social
network and cultural distance as well as the language
barrier may have negative effects on their entrepre-
neurial activities (Collins, 2008; Libaers & Wang,
2012a, b; Marvasti, 2005). Accordingly, foreign-
born scientists may be less likely to have their pat-
ents licensed (van Holm et al., 2020) and less prone
to engage in joint transfer and commercialization of
technologies with industry actors compared to their
US-born peers (Libaers, 2014). The immigrant sci-
entists may be more successful in attracting resources
for research, but possibly less successful in entrepre-
neurial activities making them more entrepreneurial
academics rather than entrepreneurial academics
(Libaers & Wang, 2012a, b).
Despite somewhat mixed findings about foreign-
born scientists’ engagement in academic entrepre-
neurship and evidence provided by several studies
which suggest foreign-born scientists may have
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
H. Choi et al.
disadvantages when they seek to fully realize the
commercial potential of research beyond patenting,
we expect a positive relationship between foreign-
born status and technology transfer engagement
that includes patent, license, and start-up creation
in this research. It is because our research sample
is drawn from top research universities in the USA
as we explain in the data section. We presume that
foreign-born scientists who obtained tenure-track
positions at top US research universities are more
successful immigrants who went through an even
more intense screening process. Multiple screen-
ing processes that foreign-born scientists experi-
ence can explain the broader skills and knowledge
that they possess that are potentially conducive to
entrepreneurial activities. The screening begins
when foreign-born scientists enter the US bor-
der and it continues to select the most competent
immigrants. Foreign-born scientists who pursue an
advanced degree and enter the USA are typically
among the best students in their home country. The
second screening occurs when the foreign-born
scientist decides whether to stay in America. The
better-performing foreign-born scientists are per-
mitted to stay and join universities as post-docs or
faculty members (Libaers & Wang, 2012a, b). Logi-
cally, immigrants who end up being placed in top
research institutions should possess better skill sets
outperforming not only domestic-born scientists but
also other foreign-born scientists. Therefore, we
hypothesize:
H3: Foreign-born scientists in top research uni-
versities are more likely to engage in technology
transfer than their domestic-born counterparts.
Research suggests prior entrepreneurial experi-
ence is one important determinant of entrepreneurial
identity and motivation. Research has shown that
prior entrepreneurial experience can shape how peo-
ple define themselves as entrepreneurs (Obschonka
et al., 2015; Pihkala & Vesalainen, 1999). In the
context of academic entrepreneurship, university sci-
entists who have collaborated with industry partners
are better at identifying and exploiting commercial
potential of research (Deste et al., 2012). It is primar-
ily due to the learning that occurs during the expe-
rience. As research suggests, entrepreneurial experi-
ences provide knowledge, social network, and role
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
familiarity and help individuals have stronger entre-
preneurial identity aspiration and motivation (Farmer
et al., 2011). Therefore, prior technology transfer
experience will be positively associated with entre-
preneurial identity. Please note that the technology
transfer engagement variable we are trying to test is
their “past” engagement, not their intention to engage
in technology transfer in the future.
In combination with H3, which links the foreign-
born status to technology transfer engagement, we
propose that the active technology transfer engage-
ment of foreign-born scientists will lead to a more
salient entrepreneurial identity. We hypothesize:
H4: Technology transfer engagement is positively
associated with entrepreneurial identity. There-
fore, the relationship between foreign-born status
and entrepreneurial identity in top research uni-
versities will be mediated by engagement in tech-
nology transfer activities.
3 Data and method
To test these hypotheses, survey data were collected
at two points in time, separated by 8 months. Indi-
viduals were identified from email distribution lists
of academic scientists and engineers at 25 top US
research universities. These include public and pri-
vate universities, as well as those with and without
a medical school. University scientists and engineers
at these 25 institutions who could at least potentially
engage in technology transfer were identified (e.g.,
faculty members in the chemistry or chemical engi-
neering department). Subsequently, we contacted a
total of 18,573 university researchers in departments
that had a reasonable likelihood of including individ-
uals who might engage in internal entrepreneurship
and asked them to complete an initial survey. Indi-
viduals were asked to complete the survey if they are
familiar with technology transfer.
A total of 1980 scientists and engineers completed
the initial survey. Respondents were asked to report
their email addresses, so that they could complete a
subsequent survey at a future point in time. A total
of 994 scientists and engineers provided an email
address and 8 months later, these individuals were
contacted so we could distribute the time 1 survey.
The time 1 survey included measures of role conflict
and work-life balance (as a control variable). The
time 2 survey included measures of entrepreneurial
identity and organizational commitment (as a control
variable). At time 1, we also assessed foreign-born
status; and at time 2, we assessed the extent of prior
technology transfer engagement in terms of patenting
and licensing activity, as well as startup creation. We
received a total of 391 responses at time 2, resulting
in a response rate of approximately 39%.
3.1 Measures
We used a total of nine variables to test our hypoth-
eses. These variables are entrepreneurial identity,
technology transfer engagement, work role conflict,
foreign-born status, organizational commitment,
work-life conflict, tenure status, gender, and age.
Variables that are constructed based on survey items
were all measured based on a 5-point Likert-type
response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
agree), unless otherwise noted. Survey items that
are used to create study variables are listed in
Appendix.1
Role conflict We measured role conflict using five
survey items adapted from the work of Rizzo et al.
(1970). We specifically focused on the demands of
having an entrepreneurial role and adapted items from
Rizzo et al. (1970) pertaining to conflicts regarding
time, resources, incongruent behaviors, skill sets,
desires of others, and policies/guidelines. A sam-
ple item is “Should I engage in commercializing my
work, I would have to spend less time fulfilling my
other obligations as a faculty member.” The internal
consistency reliability was α = 0.70 for this measure.
Foreign‑born status Foreign-born scientists are
those who were born outside of the USA. We meas-
ure this as a binary variable, coded as 1 if the person
is born outside of the USA, zero otherwise.
1
We dealt with common-method bias by temporally sepa-
rating the measurement of our independent, mediating, and
dependent variables. It is also important to note that common
method bias is considered to be less of a problem when testing
interaction effects (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 H. Choi et al.

Technology transfer engagement We assessed
three binary variables of prior technology transfer
engagement: patenting, licensing, and startup forma-
tion. That is, in the time 2 survey, a respondent was
asked if he or she had patented, licensed a patented
technology, or formed a startup company. Using the
three binary variables, we computed a composite var-
iable of technology transfer engagement that ranges
from 0 to 3 where 0 indicates that the respondent has
not engaged in any form of technology transfer and
where 3 indicates that the respondent has engaged in
all three forms of technology transfer.
Entrepreneurial identity We assessed an indi-
vidual’s entrepreneurial identity using a modified
version of the four-item identity prominence and sali-
ence scale by Brenner et al. (2014). We changed the
wording of the original items, in order to tap into the
identity of entrepreneurs. A sample item is “I think of
myself as an ‘entrepreneur.’” The internal consistency
reliability is α = 0.95 for this measure.
Control variables We included work-life conflict,
organizational commitment, age, tenure status (i.e.,
whether or not scientists are tenured at their respec-
tive universities), and gender as control variables.
Each of these variables could be associated with both
technology transfer engagement and entrepreneurial
identity (Balven et al., 2018; Siegel et al., 2003a, b).
Work-life conflict is measured by three items selected
and adapted from Voydanoff (2004). The internal con-
sistency reliability of the three items is 0.75. Organi-
zational commitment is measured using six items
selected and adapted from Allen and Meyer (1990)’s
affective commitment scale. The internal consistency
reliability of the six items is 0.91. Tenure status is a
binary variable, which is coded 1 if the respondent
is tenured and 0, otherwise. Gender is coded 1 if the
respondent is male, 0 when the respondent is female.
4 Empirical results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and cor-
relations of study variables. Table 1 shows that about
25% of the scientists in the sample are foreign-born,
66% are tenured, and they are on average, 53.5 years
old. In addition, tabulation of our composite meas-
ure of technology transfer engagement revealed that
65% of the scientists had previously engaged in some
form of technology transfer, and 23% had engaged in
all three forms of technology transfer (i.e., patenting,
licensing, and startup formation).
We tested our proposed model using struc-
tural equation modeling in Mplus 7.4 (Muthén
& Muthén, 1998-2017) with maximum likeli-
hood estimation. Our model includes an inter-
action between the foreign-born status (binary)
and role conflict (continuous) variables. We
mean-centered role conflict, the continuous vari-
able (Aiken et al., 1991). We probed the inter-
action by plotting and testing the simple slopes
at one standard deviation above and below the
mean (Aiken et al., 1991). We used the Mplus
bootstrapping method at 1000 repetitions to
assess the indirect effect of foreign-born status
on entrepreneurial identity through technology
transfer activity (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The

Table 1  Correlation matrix with descriptive statistics

Variables Mean St.D (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(1) Male 0.76 0.43 1.00

(2) Tenure 0.66 0.47 0.10 1.00
(3) Age 53.51 13.26 0.15** 0.48** 1.00
(4) Org commitment 3.85 0.79 0.09 0.07 0.13* 1.00
(5) Work-life conflict 0.84 0.88 − 0.04 0.03 − 0.20** − 0.09 1.00
(6) TT engagement 1.28 1.17 0.16** 0.16** 0.25** 0.07 0.05 1.00
(7) Foreign-born 0.25 0.44 − 0.04 − 0.10* − 0.06 0.01 − 0.04 0.08 1.00
(8) Work role conflict 3.66 1.01 0.04 0.01 − 0.19** − 0.07 0.31** − 0.12* − 0.04 1.00
(9) Entrepreneurial ID 2.58 1.12 0.13* − 0.02 0.13* 0.16 **
0.05 0.44** 0.14** − 0.13* 1.00
** *
p < 0.01, p < 0.05

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
results of our structural equation model analy-
sis are shown in Fig. 1. We report one-tailed
test results because we specified direction in
our hypotheses (Jones, 1952; Kimmel, 1957).
The fit of our model is acceptable (CFI = 0.993,
RMSEA = 0.039, SRMR = 0.009).
Hypothesis 1 suggests that role conflict is nega-
tively associated with entrepreneurial identity. The
relationship between role conflict and entrepreneurial
identity is negative, but it is only marginally signifi-
cant (b =  − 0.14, p < 0.10). Thus, we conclude that
Hypothesis 1 is marginally supported. Hypothesis 2
suggests that foreign-born status will moderate the
negative relationship between role conflict and entre-
preneurial identity of university scientists, such that
the effect will be less for scientists who are foreign-
born. The interaction term for role conflict and for-
eign-born status is significant (b = 0.27, p < 0.10),
which provides support for Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 suggests that foreign-born status
will positively predict technology transfer engage-
ment. The relationship between foreign-born sta-
tus and technology transfer engagement is positive
and significant (b = 0.51, p < 0.01), which provides
Fig. 1  Path model
support for Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4 suggests
that the relationship between foreign-born sta-
tus and entrepreneurial identity will be mediated
by prior technology transfer engagement. As sup-
ported by Hypothesis 3, the relationship between
foreign-born status and prior technology trans-
fer engagement is positive. Also, the relation-
ship between technology transfer engagement and
entrepreneurial identity is significant (b = 0.39,
p < 0.01). These results together provide support
for the hypothesized mediation effect.
There are several paths that we did not hypoth-
esize but are statistically significant. Not surpris-
ingly, role conflict is negatively associated with
technology transfer engagement (b =  − 0.36,
p < 0.01). This result, combined with role conflict’s
direct, and negative association with entrepreneur-
ial identity, suggests that role conflict perceived
by university scientists can considerably hamper
their entrepreneurial identity both through direct
and indirect paths. Organizational commitment is
negatively associated with entrepreneurial identity.
That is, scientists who have stronger affective com-
mitment to their university do not strongly identify
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

themselves as entrepreneurs. This finding may indi-
cate that scientists who have higher level of affec-
tive commitment to their universities may do so
because of their affection toward the prescribed
roles as traditional faculty which may poten-
tially reduce the need to identify themselves with
entrepreneurship.
Surprisingly, work-life conflict is positively associ-
ated with technology transfer engagement. This result
indicates that those who actively engage in technol-
ogy transfer may do so by compromising their time
for their non-work life. Age is negatively associated
with entrepreneurial identity. This finding indicates
that academic entrepreneurship is more deeply inter-
nalized by younger scientists revealing generational
difference between younger and older scientists. Not
surprisingly, male scientists are more active in tech-
nology transfer, re-confirming findings of extant
studies (Abreu & Grinevich, 2017; Stephan & El-
Ganainy, 2007). Tenure status is positively associated
with technology transfer engagement but is nega-
tively associated with entrepreneurial identity. This
may indicate that as faculties are promoted to higher
rank, they become more experienced with research
and therefore have more chances to commercialize
research. However, at the same time, being tenured
means being older and less prone to engage in a less
traditional activity such as entrepreneurship.
5 Conclusions and discussions
5.1 Conclusions
Although US universities have placed a greater
emphasis on research commercialization and entre-
preneurship since the enactment of Bayh-Dole
in 1980 (Siegel, 2006), entrepreneurship is still
a non-traditional role for many university scien-
tists. These scientists must balance any potential
interest in entrepreneurship with their traditional/
primary roles of basic research and teaching. Our
findings provide support for the view that role con-
flict relating to entrepreneurial demands can reduce
the degree to which scientists identify themselves
as entrepreneurs. However, the negative effect of
role conflict on entrepreneurship is affected by indi-
vidual factors, such as foreign-born status, given
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
H. Choi et al.
the way scientists perceive, manage, and internal-
ize a role may differ according to individual char-
acteristics. The findings suggest that academic
entrepreneurship could be stimulated by enhancing
the mobility of scientists across countries, as high-
skilled foreign-born scientists may be more active
in technology transfer activities. In addition, the
greater propensity on the part of successful for-
eign-born scientists to engage in commercialization
appears to heighten the salience of entrepreneurial
identity potentially leading to reinforcement of
entrepreneurial behaviors in the future.
5.2 Implications of the study
Caution is required when drawing generalizable
implications to immigration policy based on the
findings of this research. Implications need to be
drawn in consideration of the findings from the
extant research on foreign-born status and their
research commercialization performance along
with the sample characteristics of our research.
Extant studies have suggested that even though
foreign-born scientists may outperform domes-
tic-born scientists in terms of research outcomes
such as the number of scientific articles and
grants as well as the number of patents (Cor-
ley & Sabharwal, 2007; Kim et al., 2012; Kra-
bel et al., 2012; Libaers & Wang, 2012a, b; Ste-
phan & Levin, 2001; Walsh, 2015), their effort
to commercialize scientific outcomes beyond
patenting (e.g., licensing, joint-technology
transfer with industry partners) may be less suc-
cessful compared to their domestic-born peers
(Libaers, 2014; van Holm et al., 2020). The
foreign-born scientists’ limited ability to com-
mercialize research beyond the patenting phase
may be attributed to their limited social network
and cultural distance, and in some cases, heav-
ier administrative burdens associated with their
legal status (Collins, 2008; Corley & Sabhar-
wal, 2007; Libaers & Wang, 2012a, b; Marvasti,
2005).
Unlike most extant studies, our research com-
pared foreign-born and domestic-born scientists in
top research universities who obtained tenure-track
positions. Therefore, the foreign-born scientists in
our sample may have a higher level of intellectual
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
and most importantly, social capital compared to gen-
eral immigrant scientists and hence are more likely
to overcome the aforementioned barriers that most
immigrants experience.
Our findings, when juxtaposed with findings from
the extant literature, provide a more nuanced impli-
cation for immigration and innovation/entrepreneur-
ship policy (Siegel & Wessner, 2012). As suggested
by several studies, foreign-born scientists may expe-
rience more hurdles such as language, cultural, and
legal barriers which can potentially frustrate their
active engagement in technology transfer even when
they may possess a greater potential to commercial-
ize their research. Our findings suggest that foreign-
born scientists who obtained tenure-track positions
in top research universities in the USA, who may
have greater intellectual and most importantly greater
social capital which make them more successful
immigrants, can outperform their domestic-born
peers in terms of technology transfer outcomes and
have a stronger entrepreneurial identity. We propose
that open immigration policy is important, but it will
be successful in promoting innovation only when
enough support for high-skilled immigrant scientists
is provided.
5.3 Limitations of the study and future research
direction
Our research has limitations. First, we acknowl-
edge the somewhat coarse nature of the foreign-
born construct. Because of Internal Review Board
(IRB) restrictions that were placed on our research
for the goal of preserving anonymity, we did not
assess the specific country of origin for foreign-
born scientists. Thus, we could not measure any
cultural distance that each foreign-born scientist
has from the USA. We recognize that our obtained
effects could vary if, for example, an immigrant
came from Canada versus a country such as India.
We also recognize that the foreign-born construct
can only serve as a proxy for other variables that
could account for effects, such as greater cogni-
tive flexibility. We assumed and hypothesized that
foreign-born scientists may have greater cognitive
flexibility to better deal with role conflict at work,
as they learn to harmonize cross-cultural differ-
ences during the immigration process, and such
ability to harmonize the different cultural norms
may help them cope with competing demands at
work.
However, we could not drill down such effects
based on our coarse measure. Future research
is required to see if there are any differences
in cognitive abilities between foreign-born and
domestic-born scientists in relation to manag-
ing role conflict and engaging in entrepreneur-
ial activities. Measures such as the paradoxical
thinking (Hameiri et al., 2018) can be applied in
future studies to study academic entrepreneur-
ship. Second, we relied on self-ratings in both of
our surveys. Self-ratings may be especially prob-
lematic for assessing technology transfer engage-
ment. Accordingly, we encourage future research
to include objectively assessed measures of vari-
ables like patents, licensing, and start-ups that
might be associated with the work of individual
scientists.
Our findings may provide greater insight into the
role of ambidexterity at the entrepreneurial univer-
sity (Guerrero, 2021; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). A
key challenge encountered by administrators at entre-
preneurial universities is how to encourage scientists
to engage in commercialization of their research. In
switching from scientist mode to entrepreneur mode,
scientists must also develop capacity to simultane-
ously balance and achieve both (Ambos et al., 2008).
Our measure of entrepreneurial identity is centered
on a scientist’s association with entrepreneurship,
with minimal consideration of their primary role as
scientist.
Future research on entrepreneurial identity
should focus on ambidexterity, in relation to sci-
entists’ entrepreneurial identity, so we can better
understand how to promote entrepreneurial uni-
versity without compromising academic rigor.
We also believe that our results may have dire
implications for the entrepreneurial university,
in the aftermath of governmental responses to
the pandemic (Guerrero & Pugh, 2022; Siegel
& Guerrero, 2021), including quarantines, lock-
downs, and “re-openings,” which have severely
disrupted the scientific workplace and dissemi-
nation outlets. It would also be interesting assess
how such disruptions have affected organiza-
tional justice, relating to the quality of the rela-
tionships scientists have with technology trans-
fer offices and other university administrators
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

(Waldman, et al, 2022). Note that many entre-
preneurial universities rely heavily on the
mobility of scientists, which has been severely
restricted during the pandemic, as well as in-
person activities such as conferences, seminars,
and social events where scientists from different
regions and countries interact with each other,
entrepreneurs, and the financial community.
Acknowledgements Comments from Maribel Guerrero,
Wadid Lamine, Sarfraz Mian, Riitta Katila, Chuck Eesley,
Peter Klein, Melissa Graebner, Sonali Shah, Gerrit Wolf, Mir-
jam Knockaert, and seminar/conference participants at the
University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, Stanford, UConn,
Baylor, Stony Brook, the 2019 APPAM Meetings, and the June
2022 Small Business Economics Virtual Workshop at the Tel-
fer School of Management, University of Ottawa, are greatly
appreciated.
Funding Financial support from the National Science Foun-
dation is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix. Survey items
Entrepreneurial identity (measured in the time 2
survey, a = 0.95)
1. Being an entrepreneur is an important part of my
self-image.
2. Being an entrepreneur is an important reflection
of who I am.
3. I think of myself as an “entrepreneur.”
4. I have a strong sense of belonging to the commu-
nity of entrepreneurs.
Role conflict (measured in the time 1 survey,
a = 0.70)
1. Should I engage in commercializing my work, I
would have to spend less time fulfilling my other
obligations as a faculty member.
2. Spending significant time and effort in commer-
cializing my research would be seen as unproduc-
tive by my Department Chair or research center/
institute Director.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
H. Choi et al.
3. It is not possible to effectively commercialize my
research (patent, license, startup company) and
also be a good faculty member.
4. I do not have enough resources to both commer-
cialize my research, and effectively complete my
responsibilities as a faculty member.
5. Commercializing research (patenting, licensing,
launching a startup company) and being a faculty
member require completely different skill sets.
Technology transfer engagement (measured in the
time 2 survey):
Composite of three binary variables (ranging from
0 to 3).
1. Patent (dummy variable)
2. License (dummy variable)
3. Startup creation (dummy variable)
Immigrant status: Foreign-born scientists refer
to those who are born outside of the USA. It is a
dummy variable coded 0 if they were born within
the USA, and 1 if they are born outside of the USA.
Work‑life conflict (measured in the time 1 survey,
a = 0.75)
1. Given how demanding my position is, I usually
work long hours.
2. I worry about the effect of stress, due to the
demands of being a faculty member, on my health.
3. Because of research/teaching, finding time for
hobbies, leisure activities, or to maintain friend-
ships are extended family relationships is difficult.
Organizational commitment (measured in the time 2
survey, a = 0.91)
1. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my university.
2. I feel personally attached to my university.
3. I am proud to tell others that I work at my university.
4. Working at my university has a great deal of per-
sonal meaning to me.
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
5. I would be happy to work at my university until I
retire.
6. I really feel that problems faced by my university
are also my problems.
References
Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2017). Gender patterns in
academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 42(4), 763–794. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10961-​016-​9543-y
Adler, P., & Adler, P. A. (1987). Role conflict and identity sali-
ence: College athletics and the academic role. The Social
Science Journal, 24(4), 443–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0362-​3319(87)​90059-0
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple
regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and anteced-
ents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to
the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1),
1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​2044-​8325.​1990.​tb005​06.x
Almeida, F., Superior, I., Gaya, P., Queirós, A., & Faria, D.
(2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quan-
titative research methods. European Journal of Education
Studies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​887089
Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008).
When does university research get commercialized? Cre-
ating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of
Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/j.​1467-​6486.​2008.​00804.x
Ashforth, B. (2000). Role transitions in organizational life: An
identity-based perspective. Routledge.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a
day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5465/​AMR.​2000.​33633​15
Ashforth, B. (2000). Role transitions in organizational life.
In Role transitions in organizational life (1st ed.). Rout-
ledge. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97814​10600​035
Balven, R., Fenters, V., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. (2018).
Academic entrepreneurship: The roles of identity, moti-
vation, championing, education, work-life balance, and
organizational justice. Academy of Management Per-
spectives, 32(1), 21–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amp.​
2016.​0127
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of
bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(01), 36–54.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0261​44481​00003​39
Berry, J. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 37, pp.
201–234). University of Nebraska Press.
Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspec-
tive on executive function. In Child development (Vol.
81, Issue 6, pp. 1641–1660). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8624.​2010.​01499.x
Bialystok, E., & Majumder, S. (1998). The relationship
between bilingualism and the development of cognitive
processes in problem solving. Applied Psycholinguis-
tics, 19(1), 69–85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​s0142​71640​
00105​84
Blume-Kohout, M. E. (2016b). Why are some foreign-born
workers more entrepreneurial than others? Journal of
Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1327–1353. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s10961-​015-​9438-3
Blume-Kohout, M. E. (2016a). Imported entrepreneurs:
Foreign-born scientists and and engineers in US STEM
fields entrepreneurship. http://​www.​sba.​gov/​conte​nt/​
conne​ct-​us
Brenner, P. S., Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2014). The causal
ordering of prominence and salience in identity theory:
An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly,
77(3), 231–252. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01902​72513​
518337
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the fac-
tors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collab-
oration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/J.​RESPOL.​2010.​03.​006
Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 56(6), 836. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2307/​20962​59
Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between iden-
tity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly,
44(2), 83. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​30337​04
Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role
identity. Social Forces, 55(4), 881–897. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1093/​sf/​55.4.​881
Callero, P. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 48(3), 203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​30336​81
Choi, H., Yoon, H., Siegel, D., Waldman, D. A., & Mitch-
ell, M. S. (2022). Assessing differences between
university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scien-
tists in technology transfer. Research Policy, 51(3),
104456. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​RESPOL.​2021.​
104456
Christmas, C. N., & Barker, G. G. (2014). The immigrant expe-
rience: Differences in acculturation, intercultural sensitiv-
ity, and cognitive flexibility between the first and second
generation of Latino immigrants. Journal of International
and Intercultural Communication, 7(3), 238–257. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17513​057.​2014.​929202
Clark, E., & Geppert, M. (2011). Subsidiary integration as
identity construction and institution building: A political
sensemaking approach. Journal of Management Stud-
ies, 48(2), 395–416. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​6486.​
2010.​00963.x
Collins, J. M. (2008). Coming to America: Challenges for
faculty coming to United States’ universities. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), 179–188. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03098​26070​17312​15
Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign-born aca-
demic scientists and engineers: Producing more and get-
ting less than their U.S.-born peers? Research in Higher
Education, 48(8), 909–940. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11162-​007-​9055-6
Vol.: (0123456789)
13

Cunningham, J. A., & Miller, K. (2021). Entrepreneurial uni-
versity business models: Core drivers, challenges and con-
sequences. In A Research Agenda for the Entrepreneurial
University (pp. 103–128). https://​doi.​org/​10.​4337/​97817​
88975​049.​00014
Deste, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Rentocchini, F. (2012).
Inventors and entrepreneurs in academia: What types of
skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32(5), 293–
303. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​techn​ovati​on.​2011.​12.​005
Douglas Mepham, K., & Martinovic, B. (2018). Multilin-
gualism and out-group acceptance: The mediating roles
of cognitive flexibility and deprovincialization. Jour-
nal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(1), 51–73.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02619​27X17​706944
Farmer, S. M., Yao, X., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2011). The
behavioral impact of entrepreneur identity aspiration
and prior entrepreneurial experience. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 35(2), 245–273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/j.​1540-​6520.​2009.​00358.x
Festman, J., & Münte, T. F. (2012). Cognitive control in Rus-
sian-German bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(APR),
115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2012.​00115
Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., & Yahiaoui, D. (2021). Entre-
preneurial universities: A bibliometric analysis within the
business and management domains. Technological Fore-
casting and Social Change, 165, 120522. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/J.​TECHF​ORE.​2020.​120522
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and
issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change
in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3),
370–403. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​23939​36
Guerrero, M., & Pugh, R. (2022). Entrepreneurial universi-
ties’ metamorphosis: Encountering technological and
emotional disruptions in the COVID-19 ERA. Technova-
tion, Forthcoming,. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​techn​ovati​on.​
2022.​102584
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entre-
preneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1),
43–74.
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Eco-
nomic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities:
An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research
Policy, 44(3), 748–764. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​
RESPOL.​2014.​10.​008
Guerrero, M. (2021). Ambidexterity and entrepreneurship studies:
A literature review and research agenda. Foundations and
Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 17(5–6), 436–650. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1561/​03000​00097
Hameiri, B., Nabet, E., Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2018).
Paradoxical thinking as a conflict-resolution intervention:
Comparison to alternative interventions and examination
of psychological mechanisms. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 44(1), 122–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
01461​67217​736048
Horton, K. E., Bayerl, P. S., & Jacobs, G. (2014). Identity
conflicts at work: An integrative framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S6-22. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1002/​job.​1893
Hunt, J. (2011). Which immigrants are most innovative and
entrepreneurial? Distinctions by entry visa. Journal of
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
H. Choi et al.
Labor Economics, 29(3), 417–457. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1086/​659409
Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or
entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of
university scientists involved in commercialization activ-
ity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​respol.​2009.​02.​007
Jones, L. V. (1952). Test of hypotheses: One-sided vs. two-
sided alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 49(1), 43–46.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​h0056​832
Kerr, W. R., & Lincoln, W. F. (2010). The supply side of inno-
vation: H-1B visa reforms and U.S. ethnic invention.
Journal of Labor Economics, 28(3), 473–508. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1086/​651934
Kim, D., Twombly, S., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2012). Interna-
tional faculty in American universities: Experiences of
academic life, productivity, and career mobility. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 2012(155), 27–46.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ir.​20020
Kimmel, H. D. (1957). Three criteria for the use of one-tailed
tests. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 351–353. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1037/​h0046​737
Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D.,
& Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as
driver for economic growth and social change - Key stra-
tegic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 141, 149–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​TECHF​
ORE.​2018.​12.​004
Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a
scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation. Journal
of Business Venturing, 12(3), 213–225. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​S0883-​9026(96)​00065-1
Krabel, S., Siegel, D. S., & Slavtchev, V. (2012). The inter-
nationalization of science and its influence on aca-
demic entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 37(2), 192–212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10961-​010-​9182-7
Lam, A. (2010). From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepre-
neurial scientists’? Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307–
340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​03063​12709​349963
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage
in research commercialization: “Gold”, “ribbon” or “puz-
zle”? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​respol.​2011.​09.​002
Libaers, D. (2014). Foreign-born academic scientists and
their interactions with industry: Implications for uni-
versity technology commercialization and corporate
innovation management. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 31(2), 346–360. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
jpim.​12099
Libaers, D., & Wang, T. (2012a). Foreign-born academic
scientists: Entrepreneurial academics or academic
entrepreneurs? R and D Management, 42(3), 254–272.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​9310.​2012.​00682.x
Libaers, D., & Wang, T. (2012b). Foreign-born academic sci-
entists: Entrepreneurial academics or academic entrepre-
neurs? R&D Management, 42(3), 254–272. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​9310.​2012.​00682.x
Link, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). The Chicago hand-
book of university technology transfer and academic
entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press. https://​
Role conflict, entrepreneurial identity, and academic entrepreneurship: the effects of…
econp​apers.​repec.​org/​bookc​hap/​ucpbk​econ/​97802​26178​
349.​htm
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2019). The economic benefits of tech-
nology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1416–1426. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s10961-​019-​09734-z
MacCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and inter-
actions: An examination of human associations in every-
day life. Free Press.
Marvasti, A. (2005). U.S. Academic institutions and perceived
effectiveness of foreign-born faculty. Journal of Economic
Issues, 39(1), 151–176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00213​624.​
2005.​11506​784
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H.,
Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diver-
sity of executive functions and their contributions to com-
plex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cog-
nitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​
cogp.​1999.​0734
Mohr, A. T., & Puck, J. F. (2007). Role conflict, general man-
ager job satisfaction and stress and the performance of
IJVs. European Management Journal, 25(1), 25–35.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​emj.​2006.​11.​003
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s
Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nicoladis, E., Hui, D., & Wiebe, S. A. (2018). Language domi-
nance and cognitive flexibility in French-English bilingual
children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(SEP), 1697. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2018.​01697
Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., Cantner, U., & Goethner,
M. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-identity: Predictors and
effects within the theory of planned behavior framework.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 773–794.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10869-​014-​9385-2
Pekkala Kerr, S., & Kerr, W. (2020). Immigrant entrepreneur-
ship in America: Evidence from the survey of business
owners 2007 & 2012. Research Policy, 49(3), 103918.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2019.​103918
Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the
consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5465/​amr.​2009.​0087
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011).
The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying
academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​TECHN​OVATI​ON.​2010.​12.​003
Pihkala, T., & Vesalainen, J. (1999). Entrepreneurial identity,
intentions and the effect of the push-factor. Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(2), 1–24. https://​www.​resea​
rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​30841​6709
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).
Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​
annur​ev-​psych-​120710-​100452
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resa-
mpling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3758/​BRM.​
40.3.​879
Ritter, S. M., Damian, R. I., Simonton, D. K., van Baaren, R.
B., Strick, M., Derks, J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2012). Diver-
sifying experiences enhance cognitive flexibility. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 961–964. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​JESP.​2012.​02.​009
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role con-
flict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2307/​23914​86
Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the
financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3),
364–381. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​48.3.​364.​7731
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepre-
neurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Siegel, D. S. (2006). Technological entrepreneurship: Institu-
tions and agents involved in university technology trans-
fer. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Siegel, D. S., & Guerrero, M. (2021). The impact of quaran-
tines, lockdowns, and ‘reopenings’ on the commercializa-
tion of science: Micro and macro issues. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 58(5), 1389–1394.
Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success
of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small busi-
ness innovation research program. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 37(4), 404–415.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Assess-
ing the impact of organizational practices on the relative
productivity of university technology transfer offices: An
exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.
Siegel, D. S., Wessner, C., Binks, M., & Lockett, A. (2003).
Policies promoting innovation in small firms: Evidence
from the U.S. and U.K. Small Business Economics, 20(2),
121–127.
Spiegler, O., & Leyendecker, B. (2017). Balanced cultural identi-
ties promote cognitive flexibility among immigrant children.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8(SEP), 1579. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3389/​fpsyg.​2017.​01579
Stephan, P. E., & El-Ganainy, A. (2007). The entrepreneurial
puzzle: Explaining the gender gap. The Journal of Tech-
nology Transfer, 32(5), 475–487.
Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2001). Exceptional contribu-
tions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-edu-
cated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(1–2),
59–79. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10106​82017​950
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social
identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​26958​70
Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturalism: A model
of the effects of second-culture exposure on acculturation
and integrative complexity. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00220​
22105​284495
Thoits, P. A. (1986). Multiple identities: Examining gender and
marital status differences in distress. American Sociologi-
cal Review, 51(2), 259. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​20955​20
Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universi-
ties: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneur-
ship in a European region. Economic Development Quar-
terly, 27(1), 40–55. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​08912​42412​
471973
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 H. Choi et al.

van Holm, E. J., Jung, H., & Welch, E. W. (2020). The impacts university-industry research relationships and the rise
of foreignness and cultural distance on commercialization of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37(10), 1854–
of patents. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://​doi.​org/​ 1864. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​respol.​2008.​07.​010
10.​1007/​s10961-​020-​09775-9
Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 398–412. affiliations.
Waldman, D., Balven, R., Vaulont, M., Siegel, D., & Rupp, D.
(2022). The role of justice perceptions in formal and infor-
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
mal university technology transfer. Journal of Applied
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
Psychology, 107(8), 1397–1413. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
apl00​00944
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
Walsh, J. P. (2015). The impact of foreign-born scientists and
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
engineers on American nanoscience research. Science and
and applicable law.
Public Policy, 42(1), 107–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​
SCIPOL/​SCT084
Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008).
Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of

Vol:. (1234567890)
13