Longitudinal expression profiling identifies a poor risk subset of patients with ABC-type Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

Despite the effectiveness of immuno-chemotherapy, 40% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) experience relapse or refractory disease. Longitudinal studies have previously focused on the mutational landscape of relapse but falling short of providing a consistent relapse-specific genetic signature. In our study, we have focussed attention on the changes in gene expression profile accompanying DLBCL relapse using archival paired diagnostic/relapse specimens from 38 de novo DLBCL patients. Cell of origin remained stable from diagnosis to relapse in 84% of patients, with only a single patient showing COO switching from ABC to GCB. Analysis of the transcriptomic changes that occur following relapse suggest ABC and GCB relapses are mediated via different mechanisms. We developed a 30-gene discriminator for ABC-DLBCLs derived from relapse-associated genes, that defined clinically distinct high and low risk subgroups in ABC-DLBCLs at diagnosis in datasets comprising both population-based and clinical trial cohorts. This signature also identified a population of <60-year-old patients with superior PFS and OS treated with Ibrutinib-R-CHOP as part of the PHOENIX trial. Altogether this new signature adds to the existing toolkit of putative genetic predictors now available in DLBCL that can be readily assessed as part of prospective clinical trials

Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness

Most universities committed to the commercialization of academic research have established technology transfer offices (TTOs). Nonetheless, many researchers bypass these TTOs and take their inventions directly to the marketplace. While TTO bypassing has typically been portrayed as deliberate and undesirable behavior, we argue that it could be unintentional as many researchers may simply be unaware of the TTO’s existence. Taking an information-processing perspective and using data on 3250 researchers in 24 European universities, we examine researcher attributes associated with TTO awareness. Our evidence confirms that only a minority of researchers are aware of the existence of a TTO at their university. TTO awareness is greater among researchers who possess experience as entrepreneurs, closed many research and consulting contracts with industry partners, conduct research in medicine, engineering or life sciences, or occupy postdoctoral positions. Policy implications of these findings are discussed

Longitudinal expression profiling identifies a poor risk subset of patients with ABC-type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Despite the effectiveness of immuno-chemotherapy, 40% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) experience relapse or refractory disease. Longitudinal studies have previously focused on the mutational landscape of relapse but fell short of providing a consistent relapse-specific genetic signature. In our study, we have focused attention on the changes in GEP accompanying DLBCL relapse using archival paired diagnostic/relapse specimens from 38 de novo patients with DLBCL. COO remained stable from diagnosis to relapse in 80% of patients, with only a single patient showing COO switching from activated B-cell–like (ABC) to germinal center B-cell–like (GCB). Analysis of the transcriptomic changes that occur following relapse suggest ABC and GCB relapses are mediated via different mechanisms. We developed a 30-gene discriminator for ABC–DLBCLs derived from relapse-associated genes that defined clinically distinct high- and low-risk subgroups in ABC–DLBCLs at diagnosis in datasets comprising both population-based and clinical trial cohorts. This signature also identified a population of <60-year–old patients with superior PFS and OS treated with ibrutinib–R-CHOP as part of the PHOENIX trial. Altogether this new signature adds to the existing toolkit of putative genetic predictors now available in DLBCL that can be readily assessed as part of prospective clinical trials

Defining family business: a closer look at definitional heterogeneity

Researchers have used a myriad of different definitions in seeking to explain the heterogeneity of family firms and their unique behavior; however, no widely-accepted definition exists today. Definitional clarity in any field is essential to provide (a) the basis for the analysis of performance both spatially and temporally and (b) the foundation upon which theories, frameworks and models are developed. We provide a comprehensive analysis of prior research and identify and classify 82 definitions of family business. We then review and evaluate five key theoretical perspectives in family business to identify how these have shaped and informed the definitions employed in the field and duly explain family firm heterogeneity. Finally, we provide a conceptual diagram to inform the choice of definition in different research settings

Economy and Divorces: Their Impact Over Time on the Self-Employment Rates in Spain

The paper used time-series data and examined the effect of economic and social variables on the male and female self-employment rates in Spain. We also employed cointegration analysis (with and without) structural breaks. We thus find strong evidence that long run relationships exist among the variables. More precisely, we find that the unemployment rates and the ratio of self-employment to employees’ earnings have a positive effect on self-employment, whereas, economic development and divorce rates have a negative effect. Importantly, we find that the economic variables have equal or stronger long run impact on females than males, with both groups reacting to changes in family circumstances. Finally, we show that the short run family circumstances are better predictors of self-employment choices rather than economic factors, with self-employment being a means of adjustment to new personal circumstances and economic needs

Management theories linking individual and organizational level analysis in entrepreneurship research

This paper carries out a bibliographical review of the evolution of the individual level research, the new individual approaches and analyzes possible methods for the extension of entrepreneurship research to the organizational level. We also discuss about the suitability of the resource based view and network approaches. We review the management theories and paradigms which are capable of incorporating and linking individual and organizational level studies to the external context where entrepreneurs compete and seek opportunities. In this sense we refer to the resource based view and the network theory as they have been deemed the most adequate to incorporate micro level theories through a convergence of concepts, rather than by a combination or confrontation of ideas. The linking concepts of the individual and firm level theories are presented as an evolution of entrepreneurship research in a specific direction, showing the common ideas shared in the convergent point.Canina, L.; Palacios Marqués, D.; Devece Carañana, CA. (2012). Management theories linking individual and organizational level analysis in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 8(3):271-284. doi:10.1007/s11365-010-0166-8S27128483Auerswald, P. (2008). Entrepreneurship in the theory of the firm. Small Business Economics, 30(2), 111–126.Baron, R. A. (2009). Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision making: differences between experts and novices: does experience in starting new ventures change the way entrepreneurs think? Perhaps, but for now, “Caution” is essential. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 310–315.Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–15.Bratkovic, T., Antoncic, B., & Ruzzier, M. (2009). Strategic utilization of entrepreneur’s resource-based social capital and small firm growth. Journal of Management and Organization, 15(4), 486–499.Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2009). Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs—new evidence from an experimentally validated survey. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 153–167.Chiles, T. H., Vulture, D. M., Gupta, V. K., Greening, D. W., & Tuggle, C. S. (2010). The philosophical foundations of a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 138–164.Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 6(2), 81–99.Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship as growth; growth as entrepreneurship. In P. Davidsson, F. Delmar, & J. Wiklund (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the growth of firms (pp. 21–38). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publisher.Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.Franco, M., & Haase, H. (2010). Failure factors in small and medium-sized enterprises: qualitative study from an attributional perspective. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 503–521.Fuentes, M., Ruiz, M., Bojica, A., & Fernandez, V. (2010). Prior knowledge and social networks in the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(4), 481–501.Fuller-Love, N. (2009). Formal and informal networks in small businesses in the media industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(3), 271–284.Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is the entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Business, 12(14), 11–32.Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 43–62.Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Henley, A. (2007). Entrepreneurial aspiration and transition into self-employment: evidence from British longitudinal data. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(3), 253–280.Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S. L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: refining the measure. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(4), 965–988.Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(2), 93–104.Mueller, S. L., & Goic, S. (2003). East–West differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy: implications for entrepreneurship education in transition economies. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(4), 613–632.Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic.Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385.Rodriguez, A., Rodriguez, A., & Murillo, G. (2010). New perspectives for the managerial entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(2), 203–219.Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2009). Advancing strategic entrepreneurship research: the role of complexity science in shifting the paradigm. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 241–276.Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: a review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3), 379–399.Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of organizational behavior modification on task performance, 1975–95. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1122–1149.Thurik, A. R., & Wennekers, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(1), 140–149.Tolstoy, D. (2010). Knowledge combination in networks: evidence from the international venturing of four small biotech firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(2), 183–202.van Stel, A. J. (2006). Empirical analysis of entrepreneurship and economic growth (International studies in entrepreneurship series, vol. 13). New York: Springer Science.Veciana, J. M., & Urbano, D. (2008). The institutional approach to entrepreneurship research. Introduction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 365–379.Welter, F., & Lasch, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in Europe: taking stock and looking forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(2), 241–248.West, G. P., III. (2003). Connecting levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: a focus on information processing, asymmetric knowledge and networks. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 51–70). London: Edward Elgar.Westhead, P. (2008). Entrepreneurship: concepts, theory and perspectives. International Small Business Journal, 26(2), 251–255.Westlund, H., & Bolton, R. (2003). Local social capital and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 77–113.Wright, M., Hoskisson, R. E., Busenitz, L. W., & Dial, J. (2000). Entrepreneurial growth through privatizations: the upside of management buyouts. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 591–601.Zhao, H., Seibert, C., & Hills, C. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 1265–1272.Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431