Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Validating curricular competencies in innovation and entrepreneurship for biomedical research trainees: A modified Delphi approach

  • Jane Garbutt (a1) (a2), Alison Antes (a1), Jessica Mozersky (a1), James Pearson (a1), Joseph Grailer (a1), Emre Toker (a1) and James DuBois (a1)...

Abstract

Introduction:

Biomedical researchers need skills in innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) to efficiently translate scientific discoveries into products and services to be used to improve health.

Methods:

In 2016, the European Union identified and published 15 entrepreneurial competencies (EntreComp) for the general population. To validate the appropriateness of these competencies for I&E training for biomedical researchers and to identify program content, we conducted six modified Delphi panels of 45 experts (6–9 per panel). Participating experts had diverse experience, representing such fields as entrepreneurship, academic research, venture capital, and industry.

Results:

The experts agreed that all 15 EntreComp competencies were important for biomedical research trainees and no additional competencies were identified. In a two-round Delphi process, the experts identified 120 topics to be included in a training curriculum. They rated the importance of each topic using a 5-point scale from not at all important (1) to extremely important (5) for two student groups: entrepreneurs (those interested in starting their own ventures) and intrapreneurs (those wanting to be innovative and strategic within academia or industry). Consensus (mean importance score >4) was reached that 85 (71%) topics were of high importance for the curriculum. Four topics were identified by multiple panels for both student groups: resiliency, goal setting, team management, and communication skills.

Conclusions:

I&E training for biomedical trainees should address all 15 EntreComp competencies, including “soft skills,” and be flexible to accommodate the needs of trainees on different career trajectories.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Validating curricular competencies in innovation and entrepreneurship for biomedical research trainees: A modified Delphi approach
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Validating curricular competencies in innovation and entrepreneurship for biomedical research trainees: A modified Delphi approach
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Validating curricular competencies in innovation and entrepreneurship for biomedical research trainees: A modified Delphi approach
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: J. Garbutt, MB, ChB, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8116, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. Email: jgarbutt@wustl.edu

References

Hide All
1. Investing in the Future: NIGMS Strategic Plan for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Training. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Washington DC, 2011. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/about/Documents/NIGMS-Strategic-Training-Plan.pdf
2. Antes, A, Schuelke, MJ. Leveraging technology to develop creative leadership capacity. Advances in Developing Human Resources 2011; 13(3): 318365.
3. Lamblin, P, Etienne, C. Skills and Competencies Needed in the Research Field Objectives 2020. Publications Office of the European Union, Paris, France, 2010.
4. Haynie, JM, et al. A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing 2010; 25(2): 217229.
5. Mumford, MD, Connelly, S, Gaddis, B. How creative leaders think: experimental findings and cases. The Leadership Quarterly 2003; 14(4–5): 411432.
6. DuBois, J. Solving ethical problems: analyzing ethics cases and justifying decisions. In: Ethics in Mental Health Research. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 4657.
7. Caughron, JJ, et al. Sensemaking strategies for ethical decision making. Ethics & Behavior 2011; 21(5): 351366.
8. Thiel, C, et al. Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics 2012; 107(1): 4964.
9. Ashford, SJ, DeRue, DS. Developing as a leader: the power of mindful engagement. Organizational Dynamics 2012; 41: 146164.
10. Aspinwall, LG, Taylor, SE. A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin 1997; 121(3): 417436.
11. Cunningham, JB, Lischeron, J. Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 1991; 29(1): 4561.
12. Baum, JR,Bird, BJ, Singh, S. The practical intelligence of entrepreneurs: antecedents and a link with a new venture growth. Personnel Psychology 2011; 64: 397489.
13. Neck, CP, et al. “I think I can; I think I can”: a self-leadership perspective toward enhancing entrepreneur thought patterns, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology 1999; 14(6): 477501.
14. Roche, M, Haar, JM, Luthans, F. The role of mindfulness and psychological capital on the well-being of leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2014; 19(4): 476489.
15. Shaver, KG, Scott, LR. Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 1991; 16: 2345.
16. Cogliser, CC, Brigham, KH. The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: mutual lessons to be learned. The Leadership Quarterly 2004; 15(6): 771799.
17. Vecchio, RP. Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Human Resource Management Review 2003; 13(2): 303327.
18. Baron, R. Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship: mutual lessons to be learned. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2000; 9: 1518.
19. Klotz, AC, et al. New venture teams a review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management 2014; 40(1): 226255.
20. Mumford, MD. Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review 2000; 10(3): 313351.
21. Robledo, IC, Peterson, DR, Mumford, MD. Leadership of scientists and engineers: a three-vector model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2012; 33(1): 140147.
22. Bergenholtz, C. Knowledge brokering: spanning technological and network boundaries. European Journal of Innovation Management 2011; 14(1): 7492.
23. Gumusluoğlu, L, Ilsev, A. Transformational leadership and organizational innovation: the roles of internal and external support for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2009; 26(3): 264277.
24. Lettice, F, Thomond, P. Allocating resources to disruptive innovation projects: challenging mental models and overcoming management resistance. International Journal of Technology Management 2008; 44(1): 140159.
25. Mumford, MD, Eubanks, DL, Murphy, ST. Creating the conditions for success: best practices in leading for innovation. In J. A. Conger & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The practice of leadership: Developing the next generation of leaders (pp. 129149). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass., 2007.
26. Eisenbeiss, SA, Brodbeck, F. Ethical and unethical leadership: a cross-cultural and cross-sectoral analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 2014; 122(2): 343359.
27. Bacigalupo, M, et al. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework, 2016. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101581/lfna27939enn.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2018.
28. McCallum, E, et al. EntreComp into Action: Get Inspired, Make It Happen, 2018. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/entrecomp-action-get-inspired-make-it-happen-user-guide-european-entrepreneurship-competence. Accessed November 21, 2018.
29. DuBois, JM, et al. Curricular priorities for business ethics in medical practice and research: recommendations from Delphi consensus panels. BMC Medical Education 2014; 14: 235.
30. Dubois, JM Dueker, JM. Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: a Delphi consensus panel report. Journal of Research Administration 2009; 40(1): 4970.
31. Almeland, SK, et al. Plastic surgery in the Norwegian undergraduate medical curriculum: students’ knowledge and attitudes. A nationwide case-control study. Journal of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery 2017; 51(2): 136142.
32. Muniz-Rodriguez, L, et al. Developing and validating a competence framework for secondary mathematics student teachers through a Delphi method. Journal of Education for Teaching 2017; 43(4):383399.
33. Volpe, RL, Hopkins, M, DuBois, JM. Mapping the terrain of ethics education for physician assistants: a Delphi consensus panel report. Journal of Physician Assistant Education 2016; 27(4):196199.
34. Penciner, R, et al. Using a Delphi process to establish consensus on emergency medicine clerkship competencies. Medical Teacher 2011; 33(6): e333339.
35. Wallengren, J. Identification of core competencies for primary care of allergy patients using a modified Delphi technique. BMC Medical Education 2011; 11: 12.
36. Diamond, IR, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2014; 67(4): 401409.
37. Antoncic, B, Hisrich, RD. Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing 2001; 16(5): 495527.
38. Ameredes, BT, et al. The multidisciplinary translational team (MTT) model for training and development of translational research investigators. Clinical and Translational Science 2015; 8(5): 533541.
39. Steele, SJ. Working with the CTSA consortium: what we bring to the table. Science Translational Medicine 2010; 2(63): 63mr65.
40. Dilmore, TC, Moore, DW, Bjork, Z. Developing a competency-based educational structure within clinical and translational science. Clinical and Translational Science 2013; 6(2): 98102.
41. Begg, MD, et al. Approaches to preparing young scholars for careers in interdisciplinary team science. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2014; 62(1): 1425.
42. CTSA. Core Competencies in Clinical and Translational Research, 2011. Retrieved from https://clic-ctsa.org/sites/default/files/CTSA_Core_Competencies_final_2011.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2019.
43. Yock, PG, Brinton, TJ, Zenios, SA. Teaching biomedical technology innovation as a discipline. Science Translational Medicine 2011; 3(92): 92cm18.
44. Eisenberg, RS, Nelson, RR. Public vs. proprietary science: a fruitful tension. Academic Medicine 2002; 77(12): 13921399.
45. Kuszler, PC. Biotechnology entrepreneurship and ethics: principles, paradigms, and products. Medicine and Law 2006; 25(3): 491502.
46. Institute of Medicine. Conflict of Interest and Medical Innovation: Ensuring Integrity While Facilitating Innovation in Medical Research: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012.
47. Kotha, R, Kim, PH, Alexy, O. Turn your science into a business when commercializing scientific discoveries, inventors and firms face several potentially fatal traps. Here’s how to avoid falling into them. Harvard Business Review 2014; 92: 106114.
48. Campbell, EG, et al. Institutional academic industry relationships. Journal of the American Medical Association 2007; 298(15):17791786.
49. Campbell, EG. Doctors and drug companies – scrutinizing influential relationships. The New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 357(18): 17961797.
50. Bazerman, MH, Tenbrunsel, AE. Ethical breakdowns. Harvard Business Review 2011; 89(4): 5865.
51. Fatoki, O. The impact of entrepreneurial resilience on the success of small and medium enterprises in South Africa. Sustainability-Basel 2018; 10(7): 2527.
52. Ayala, JC, Manzano, G. The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the business. A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology 2014; 42: 126135.
53. Leppin, AL, et al. The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Plos One 2014; 9(10): e111420.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed