Science, Technology and Entrepreneurship 2018 Spring (WBS)

Syllabus

As of March 28th, 2018

Instructor: Kanetaka M. Maki, Ph.D. (Associate Professor)
E-mail: kanetaka@kanetaka-maki.org
Office Location: Building 11, Room 1136
Office Hours: By Appointment (e-mail to kanetaka-sec@kanetaka-maki.org; my secretary will respond to you)
Academic Year: 2018 (April 2018 – March 2019)
Term: Spring
Class Time: Fridays, 3rd Period (1:00-2:30 PM)
Class Room:11-1105
Teaching Assistant: Joji Tamaki
Staff ML: ste2018-global-staff@kanetaka-maki.org

 

Note: This syllabus may be updated and revised at a later date. Please always check the newest version on the web (not the handout).

 

1. Course Description

The scientific and technological knowledge emerged from research institutes, including universities, is the source of new business creation. In this class, we will discuss (1) how the knowledge is generated, and (2) the knowledge is translated into commercialization. Throughout the course, we will explore the science and technology policy/business based on cutting-edge research in economics and management research streams.
The class sessions will be organized as seminar-style. In each session, I will choose about 3 academic articles (or chapters from books) for students to prepare. Each session is composed of lecture, presentation by students, and discussion regarding reading assignments.

2. Course Objectives

  • To provide the necessary knowledge in the field of science, technology, and entrepreneurship.
  • To provide policy/business implications in the field of science, technology, and entrepreneurship.
  • To provide the necessary skills to read empirical research papers.
  • To provide the skills to evaluate valid empirical research papers.
  • To provide the big picture of the “state of the art” in the research stream of science, technology, and entrepreneurship.
  • To provide the “real world” examples of science, technology, and entrepreneurship.

3. Class Preparation/Review

In each class, you are required to read one of three academic articles carefully. For the preparation, you may need around three hours.  For the preparation of the presentation, you may need five hours. If you are not comfortable with reading in English, you may need more time. The final assignment requires three hours of preparation.

This class may be tough for those of you who do not have English skills. Additionally, reading empirical papers requires the scientific way of thinking such as causal inference. If you are not trained in these skills, you are expected to spend more time than other students.

4. Schedule 

  • Class 01: Introduction (4/6)
  • Class 02: Basics of Empirical Research (4/13)
  • Class 03: The Vehicle of Innovation: Large Firms vs Small Firms (4/20)
  • Class 04: Where are Entrepreneurs Come from? (4/27)
  • Class 05: How Important Are Star Scientists? (5/11)
  • Class 06: Why is the Scientific Breakthrough Knowledge Localized? (5/18)
  • Class 07: Why are the Entrepreneurial Activities Localized? (1) (5/25)
  • Class 08: Why are the Entrepreneurial Activities Localized? (2) (6/1)
  • Class 09: Why is Venture Capital Important? (6/8)
  • Class 10: How Important are Incentives to Invent and Commercialize? (6/15)
  • No Class (6/22)
  • Class 11: Do Universities Accelerate Innovation? (6/29)
  • Class 12: Do University-based Startups Accelerate the Innovation? (7/6)
  • Class 13: Career of Scientists (7/13)
  • Class 14: Do Government’s Subsidies Accelerate Innovation? (7/20)
  • Class 15: Final Presentation / Datasets / Wrap-up (TBD)

5. Textbook

  • A carefully selected list of readings is provided. Hand-outs and materials will be distributed in the class. I will provide the PDF files of reading documents using Dropbox.

6. Reference

  • I will introduce them in class.

7. Grading

  • Grading Rubrics
    • Class Participation – 25%
    • Summary of Reading Assignments – 25%
    • In-class Presentation of Reading Assignments – 25%
    • Mid-term/Final Presentation of Research Proposal – 25%
  • Explanation
    • The class participation is the 5-scale evaluation. The instructor evaluates individual students in each session. I expect students to prepare all of the reading assignments in each session (Use of class contribution sheet).
      • Class participation will be graded by not only the frequency of comments but also insight or value-added, divided by airtime: Grade = Value Added / Air Time, which will be decided on the basis of the following considerations:
        • The clarity and quality of your comments to the specific issues being discussed.
        • The relevance of your remarks and continuity with the foregoing discussion.
        • The extent to which your remarks reflect original thinking, going beyond common knowledge.
        • Helping to keep the class discussions lively, focused, and constructive.
    • Students are required to hand-in the one-page summary (there will be a template) of one of the articles assigned. The instructor will assign which article to prepare.
    • In-class presentation of the paper is required. I expect students to conduct a presentation at least three times throughout the course (depends on the number of students).
    • Students are expected to generate their own research proposal (ideally for the master thesis). All students are required to present their research proposal twice in this course (mid-term and final).

8. Notes

  • The newest syllabus is on the website. Make sure to check the newest version. The syllabus may be revised at a later date.
  • There is a reading assignment for class 01. Please visit WBS administrative office.
  • Many of the sessions of this class will follow the discussion format. The direction and quality of the discussion are the collective responsibility of the class, not the sole responsibility of the instructor.
  • Each student is expected to have completed readings, assignments for each class before the class starts. Each student should be prepared and expect to participate in classroom discussions.
  • The course meets 15 times for 90 minutes each time. Class sessions will begin and end on time. Please be punctual so that you do not miss the initial thrust of the discussions or disturb others. If you need to miss a class please email me in advance.
  • You are expected to attend every class. You are responsible for the material covered in class whether you attend or not. I realize that despite your best efforts you might miss a class. Please inform me in advance if you miss a class. In case of emergencies, please contact me after the class.
  • Auditing a Class: When you audit this class, you are required to read at least of the reading assignments to be ready to contribute to the class discussion.
  • In order to increase focus, use of Laptop Computers, Tablets, and/or Smart Phones will not be permitted during class sessions, except as directed in specific exercises. All class materials will be provided during the class.
  • English will be used in the classroom. If you have difficulties using in English, I am happy to assist you in Japanese during my office hours etc.
  • Questions regarding the class, please send an email to the staff ML. Please do not contact through Facebook Messenger.
  • Instructor’s personal site: http://www.kanetaka-maki.org/

9. Reading Assignments

  • Class 01: Introduction (4/6)
    • Syllabus
    • (Optional) G. Zucker, Darby, M.R. 2007. Virtuous circles in science and commerce. Papers in Regional Science86(3) 445-470.
  • Class 02: Basics of Empirical Research (4/13)
    • T. Campbell, Stanley, J.C. 2015. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books. [Chap1]
    • (Optional) H. Inoue, Nakajima, H., Umeno, Y. 2017. The Impact of the Opening of High-Speed Rail on Innovation. RIETI Discussion Paper Series
  • Class 03: The Vehicle of Innovation: Large Firms vs Small Firms (4/20)
    • J. Acs, Audretsch, D.B. 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. The American economic review 678-690.
    • Haltiwanger, et al. 2013. Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics. 95(2) 347-361.
    • Guzman, Stern, S. 2015. Nowcasting and Placecasting: Entrepreneurial Quality and Performance. University of Chicago Press.
  • Class 04: Where are Entrepreneurs Come from? (4/27)
    • Nanda, Sørensen, J.B. 2010. Workplace peers and entrepreneurship. Management Science. 56(7) 1116-1126.
    • Giannetti, Simonov, A. 2009. Social interactions and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy18(3) 665-709.
    • Lerner, Malmendier, U. 2013. With a little help from my (random) friends: Success and failure in post-business school entrepreneurship. Review of Financial Studies hht024.
  • Class 05: How Important Are Star Scientists? (5/11)
    • G. Zucker, Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J.S. 2002. Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science. 48(1) 138-153.
    • Azoulay, Graff Zivin, J., Wang, J. 2010. Superstar extinction. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 25 549-589.
    • Oettl. 2012. Reconceptualizing stars: Scientist helpfulness and peer performance. Management Science. 58(6) 1122-1140.
  • Class 06: Why is the Scientific Breakthrough Knowledge Localized? (5/18)
    • G. Zucker, Darby, M.R., Brewer, M.B. 1998. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev. 88(1) 290-306.
    • G. Zucker, Darby, M.R. 2001. Capturing Technological Opportunity Via Japan’s Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms’ Biotech Patents and Products. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 26(1/2) 37-58.
    • G. Zucker, Darby, M.R. 2007. Star scientists, innovation and regional and national immigration. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Class 07: Why are the Entrepreneurial Activities Localized? (1) (5/25)
    • Agrawal, Cockburn, I., Galasso, A., Oettl, A. 2014. Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs. Journal of Urban Economics. 81 149-165.
    • K. Agrawal, Catalini, C., Goldfarb, A. 2011. The geography of crowdfunding. National bureau of economic research.
    • Yu, Sandy, How Do Accelerators Impact the Performance of High-Technology Ventures? (August 1, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2503510
  • Class 08: Why are the Entrepreneurial Activities Localized? (2) (6/1)
    • Fallick, Fleischman, C.A., Rebitzer, J.B. 2006. Job-hopping in Silicon Valley: some evidence concerning the microfoundations of a high-technology cluster. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 88(3) 472-481.
    • Guzman, Stern, S. 2015. Where is Silicon Valley? Science. 347(6222) 606-609.
    • Casper. 2007. How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable?: Social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster. Research Policy. 36(4) 438-455.
  • Class 09: Why is Venture Capital Important? (6/8)
    • Samila, Sorenson, O. 2011. Venture capital, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 93(1) 338-349.
    • N. Kaplan, Sensoy, B.A., Strömberg, P. 2009. Should investors bet on the jockey or the horse? Evidence from the evolution of firms from early business plans to public companies. The Journal of Finance. 64(1) 75-115.
    • Hellmann, Schure, P., Vo, D. 2013. Angels and Venture Capitalists: Complements or Substitutes? NBER Working Paper.
    • (Optional) Da Rin, Hellmann, T.F., Puri, M. 2011. A survey of venture capital research. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Class 10: How Important are Incentives to Invent and Commercialize? (6/15)
    • Azoulay, Graff Zivin, J.S., Manso, G. 2011. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The RAND Journal of Economics. 42(3) 527-554.
    • Ederer, F., and G. Manso. 2013. Is pay for performance detrimental to innovation? Management Science 59:1496-1513.
    • Lach, Schankerman, M. 2008. Incentives and invention in universities. Rand Journal of Economics. 39(2) 403-433.
    • (Optional) Kenney, Patton, D. 2011. Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy. 40(8) 1100-1112.
  • Class 11: Do Universities Accelerate Innovation? (6/29)
    • Jaffe, A. B. 1989. Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review:957-970.
    • Henderson, R., A. B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of economics and statistics 80:119-127.
    • Thursby, Fuller, A.W., Thursby, M. 2009. US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy. 38(1) 14-25.
    • (Optional) Kenney, Mowery, D.C. 2014. Public Universities and Regional Growth: Insights from the University of California. Stanford Business Books. [Chap 1]
    • (Optional) E. Litan, Mitchell, L., Reedy, E. 2008. Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches. University of Chicago Press.
  • Class 12: Do University-based Startups Accelerate the Innovation? (7/6)
    • Di Gregorio, Shane, S. 2003. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy. 32(2) 209-227.
    • Shane, Stuart, T. 2002. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science. 48(1) 154-170.
    • Islam, M., A. Fremeth, and A. Marcus. 2018. Signaling by early stage startups: US government research grants and venture capital funding. Journal of Business Venturing 33:35-51.
    • (Optional) A. Shane. 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar Publishing. [Chap 1] [Chap 2]
  • Class 13: Career of Scientists (7/13)
    • Roach, Sauermann, H. 2010. A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy. 39(3) 422-434.
    • Azoulay, P., C. C. Liu, and T. E. Stuart. 2017. Social influence given (partially) deliberate matching: Career imprints in the creation of academic entrepreneurs. American journal of sociology 122:1223-1271.
    • Agarwal, R., and A. Ohyama. 2013. Industry or Academia, Basic or Applied? Career Choices and Earnings Trajectories of Scientists. Management Science 59:950-970.
  • Class 14: Do Government’s Subsidies Accelerate Innovation? (7/20)
    • Lerner. 1996. The government as venture capitalist: The long-run effects of the SBIR program. National Bureau of Economic Research.
    • Howell, S. T. 2017. Financing innovation: evidence from R&D grants. American Economic Review 107:1136-1164.
    • J. Wallsten. 2000. The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. The RAND Journal of Economics 82-100.
    • (Optional) A. Toole, Czarnitzki, D. 2009. Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science. 55(1) 101-114.
    • (Optional) B. Audretsch. 2003. Standing on the shoulders of midgets: The US Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR). Small Business Economics. 20(2) 129-135.
  • Class 15: Final Presentation / Datasets / Wrap-up (TBD)

10. Academic Integrity / Honor Code

  • The integrity of scholarship is essential for an academic community. As members of the WBS, we pledge ourselves to uphold the highest ethical standards. The University expects that both faculty and students will honor this principle and in so doing protect the validity of University intellectual work. For students, this means that all academic work will be done by the individual to whom it is assigned, without unauthorized aid of any kind.
  • The complete Waseda Business School Policy on Integrity of Scholarship can be viewed at Student Honor Code for WBS Courses.
  • Honor Code in This Course
    • You can work with anyone on class assignments.  I suggest that you work in study groups on homework assignments.