Browse through the latest calls for collaborations as well as job offers and opportunities for students. Please get in touch with the listed contact person directly or contact EERN if you have any questions.
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Innovation and Regional Economic Development
The candidate will engage in an interdisciplinary study of the interdependencies and dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems and their role in supporting innovation, regional competitiveness and economic development.
Number of Places
One funded place as well as opportunities for self-funded or externally funded places.
All applications should be submitted by 18/08/2019. We advise applications to be submitted as soon as possible as we will start conducting Skype and/or face-to-face interviews for shortlisted applicants immediately.
Up to 42 months from October 2019.
Candidates are required to have:
– A strong interest in topics around (technology-based) entrepreneurship, innovations systems
and networks, entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional economic development.
– Background in social science (business and management, economics, sociology or any other related discipline), engineering or science, with a first or 2:1 UK Honours degree, or overseas equivalent and/or a Master’s degree.
– Excellent analytical skills and a demonstrable aptitude to undertake research and develop into
an independent researcher.
– Prior knowledge in either qualitative and/or quantitative research methods and willingness to learn methodological approaches for conducting social science research as well as designing and conducting mixed method research
– Excellent written and oral English language skills (see the application page for minimum test
scores if English is not your first language).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are becoming a widely-used approach by policy makers to stimulate regional economic development. The concept itself follows a long history of territorial models of innovation and entrepreneurship. While there is a growing consensus on what an entrepreneurial ecosystem is, there is still a gap in the literature with regard to how different ecosystem ‘configurations’ lead to different outputs. In particular, how do ecosystems, which are inherently based on the role of ‘place’ and cross-industry fertilisation, interact with regional clusters as well as innovation ecosystems/platforms that are not geographically bound?
The specific research questions will be developed by the successful applicant and the supervisory team. Potential research questions include, but are not limited to:
– How is the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem related to the development of the involved clusters?
– What role does policy play in growing local innovative and entrepreneurial activity?
– What resources do entrepreneurs rely on when growing their business and how do they engage with other ecosystem and cluster actors/resources?
– What role do industry- or technology-specific and cross-industry fertilisation polices play in
growing entrepreneurial ecosystems?
– Which institutional factors are required to support ‘place-based’ entrepreneurial ecosystems?
– How can the complex networks of different actors and factors in ecosystems and clusters be conceptualised and measured? Do actors change roles over time and why?
Applicants should submit a research proposal of up to 1000 words, describing the focus of their work including a background and potential contributions.
Due to the nature of this research, there will be plenty of opportunity to engage with external stakeholders, particularly in Glasgow and the newly formed Glasgow City Innovation District (GCID) and in Madrid. This PhD position is offered in partnership with ICADE Business School, Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain. The successful candidate will have the opportunity to spend six months in Madrid and will be allocated a supervisor there as well.
The successful applicant will join a vibrant research community within the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship and the Centre for Doctoral Training in Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The Hunter Centre is now one of the largest university-based centres of entrepreneurship in the UK and is home to a team of recognised entrepreneurial experts. It’s committed to engaging in, and drawing from, world class research to inform the design and delivery of a growing portfolio of useful learning experiences offered to ‘Strathclyders’ (students, staff and alumni) and also the wider entrepreneurial ecosystem.
One studentship covering home/EU fees and a tax-free stipend circa £15,000 per annum for up to 42 months. International applicants will need to cover the difference between Home/EU and International fees. We also welcome self-funded or externally funded applications.
You will be registered to the PhD in Entrepreneurship programme based at Strathclyde Business School, under the primary supervision of Prof Nigel Lockett and secondary supervision of Bernd Wurth.
How to Apply
Please have a look at the University of Strathclyde homepage, where this position will be advertised shortly with a link to the online application portal.
For any questions or informal enquiries, please contact Bernd Wurth.
A summary can be downloaded here.
Incubator Sourcing and Performance: An Ecosystem Approach
1. Presentation of the PhD project
Over the past 30 years, the number of incubators has increased significantly worldwide (Bruneel et al., 2012). This popularization can give the impression that there is a standard incubation model supporting entrepreneurs either to protect them and help them grow or to facilitate their integration into a relevant ecosystem given their “liability of newness” However, there is a variety of incubators with diverse performances. This has led authors to describe incubation as a “black box” (Hackett and Dilts, 2004).
However, several studies have been conducted on the key factors for incubator success (Messeghem et al., 2018; Hackett and Dilts, 2008). They have highlighted the quality of support and the services offered as key factors, while other researches consider that it’s the selection strategy (with “hard” rather than “soft” indicators) that can improve incubator performance.
Both lines of research are open to criticism. First, they promote a model of a high-performance “super incubator” that attracts the best projects because of the perceived quality and reputation of their services. As a result, their performance will be superior because they select only the best projects on the market.
Secondly, they are very focused on the incubation process starting with the identification of the project, its selection and its support. However, the performance of the incubation cannot be understood independently of its environment.
To have quality incubatees, it also means having access to a sufficiently interesting pool of creative projects to be able to select them. How is this project pool set up? What about its quality and variety?
Surprisingly, little academic work has been done on this pre-incubation phase, which we call “entrepreneurial sourcing”. In other words, this phase of support for nascent entrepreneurship aimed at structuring and developing a business project. In the field, there is a real demand to fill this pre-incubation gap with national programs such as PEPITES, events such as START- UP WEEK-ENDs and programs to raise awareness or introduce students to entrepreneurship.
Our hypothesis is that the incubators’ interface with this pre-incubation ecosystem is a key element of their performance. Although projects may come from different locations, incubators are located in a region or city. In fact, there is an essential territorial dimension to understanding the performance of incubators (Audretsch and Belitski, 2017). At different stages of the development of their project, potential entrepreneurs locate themselves in different places depending on the perceived attractiveness of these territories and the potential to promote the emulation and progress of their project. Indeed, an ecosystem approach to pre-incubation is relevant to better understand the different actors and their coopetition strategies at this key stage (Theodoraki, 2017).
2. Research field and partners
Occitania Regional Ecosystem (Occitania-Ad’OCC Region, NUBBO Regional Incubator). Comparative studies between Montpellier and Toulouse will be considered to study the specificities of two ecosystems. Other research areas may also be explored (PEPITE, TBSeeds, etc.).
3. Required skills
– Good written and spoken English and French (B2 minimum).
– Interest in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial support.
– Good knowledge of qualitative and/or quantitative techniques or able to be trained.
4. Funding and duration
The salary will correspond to the French standards for a PhD. This is a full-time employment of fixed term from October 2019, for 3 years.
PhD supervisor (HDR): E. Michael Laviolette is Professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Toulouse Business School.
PhD co-supervisor: Christina Theodoraki is Assistant Professor in Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Toulouse Business School.
7. To apply
Send your file in English by email before August 26, 2019 (email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org) including:
– A detailed curriculum vitae
– A letter of motivation
– Copies of diplomas and transcripts since the first year of higher education
Attention: Candidates must have or prepare a Research Master or an Undifferentiated Master’s degree and having completed Research Courses (with a Research Dissertation), preferably in Management Science.
A summary can be downloaded here.
Special issue call for papers from IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship are key factors in commercialization of emerging technologies. The lack of them have been disastrous for organizations all around the world. This special issue will explore emerging research to outline key learnings for technology and engineering management. Cases from different kinds of organizations and industries will be considered to be able to identify new solutions for technology and engineering driven organizations. Most of the time disruptive process innovations are found in distant environments. We would like to build upon the prior research published in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (Cooper, 1971; Smilor, 1987; Keller et al, 1996; Tushman, 2004; Lin and McDonough, 2011; Marion et al, 2012).
The ability to act entrepreneurially appeared in management studies as connected to organizational ambidexterity (Du et al., 2013). Organization theory scholars refer broadly to organizational ambidexterity as an organization’s ability to pursue two competing objectives at the same time, such as manufacturing efficiency and flexibility (Adler et al., 1999) or differentiation and low-cost strategic positioning (Porter, 1996). There is an emerging consensus to frame organizational ambidexterity in terms of the competing demands for exploration and exploitation (Gupta et al., 2006; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008): where exploration involves “experimentation with new alternatives” with returns that are “uncertain, and distant,” and exploitation is the “refinement and extension of existing competencies, technologies and paradigms” with returns that are “proximate and predictable” (March, 1991). Thus, the general agreement in this literature is that an ambidextrous firm is one that is capable of both exploiting existing competencies as well as exploring new technology opportunities with equal dexterity (Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Tsai and Li, 2007), and also that achieving ambidexterity enables a firm to enhance its performance and competitiveness (Cao et al., 2009). However, organizational ambidexterity capability may enhance a firm’s performance in the long run only if it achieves incremental and radical innovation (Dewar and Dutton, 1986; Roberts, 2004). Incremental innovations are designed to meet the needs of existing customers or markets, while radical innovations are designed to meet the needs of emerging customers or markets (Benner and Tushman 2003; Danneels, 2002). Therefore, ambidextrous organizations excel at exploiting existing competencies to enable incremental innovation and at exploring new opportunities to foster radical innovation (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009). Overall, ambidexterity has been shown to be an important factor for enhancing overall firm performance (Junni et al, 2013).
An infrequent introduction of a new process, product, or service combined with a low exposure to risk exemplifies the traditional organization that is engaged in entrepreneurial and technological behaviour of low intensity (Carayannis, 1999; Vrontis et al., 2017). In the managerial literature, this attitude is deeply incorporated within a specific type of organisations, which had been usually reflected in a widely used concept: the knowledge-intensive enterprise (Del Giudice et al., 2017).
We welcome research articles that bridge the gaps in between theoretical conceptions and practical propositions, through the implications of theories on business practices, as well as through practice-based theorisation. We invite contributions, based on innovative studies that span theoretical boundaries and disciplines to develop new insights on implications and relationships between entrepreneurial conditions in global ecosystems and interactions in diverse industries and different market settings, in order to develop insights on the emerging perspectives of entrepreneurship. Such studies might be relevant, but not limited to:
– Entrepreneurial intensity, knowledge management and innovation ambidexterity
– Traditional vs. value based financial measures of entrepreneurial intensity;
– Entrepreneurial intensity and value creation;
– Entrepreneurial opportunities through knowledge/technology transfer;
– Knowledge sharing and entrepreneurial intensity;
– MIS, entrepreneurial intentions and fast growing firms;
– Entrepreneurism in Global and local ecosystems;
– Knowledge/Technology transfer and value creation within global ecosystems;
– Technological Entrepreneurship;
– Evaluation of firm performance and entrepreneurial intensity in knowledge intensive markets;
– Knowledge/technology management initiatives for ambidextrous contexts;
– Relationships between intellectual capital, organizational ambidexterity and entrepreneurial intensity.
The focus of the manuscripts should be on cutting-edge theoretical developments and phenomena in the best practices.
Submission Process: Please prepare the manuscript according to IEEE-TEM’s guidelines (http://ieee-tmc.org/tem-guidelines) and submit to the journal’s Manuscript Central site (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tem-ieee). Please clearly state in the cover letter that the submission is for this special issue.
Interested authors send abstracts by June 30th 2018
Decisions on acceptance of abstracts by September 30th 2018
Papers submitted by March 31st 2019
Elias G. Carayannis is Full Professor of Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the George Washington University School of Business in Washington, DC. He is also co-Founder and co-Director of the Global and Entrepreneurial Finance Research Institute (GEFRI) and Director of Research on Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, European Union Research Center, (EURC) at the School of Business of the George Washington University. Dr. Carayannis’ teaching and research activities focus on the areas of strategic Government-University-Industry R&D partnerships, technology road-mapping, technology transfer and commercialization, international science and technology policy, technological entrepreneurship and regional economic development. Dr. Carayannis has several publications in both academic and practitioner journals, including IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, Research Policy, Journal of R&D Management, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Technovation, Journal of Technology Transfer, Engineering Management Journal and many others.
Manlio Del Giudice is Full Professor of Management at the University of Rome “Link Campus”. He holds a PhD in Marketing and Management at the University of Milano-Bicocca and he is affiliated as Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship at the Paris School of Business, in Paris (France), and as Principal Investigador at the University of Murcia, in Murcia (Spain). He serves as Director for Research and Scholarly Relations within the Euromed Business Research Institute, where he is Senior Fellow as well. He is the author of about 100 international scientific publications (including 12 monographs); his researches have been published on flagship peer-reviewed journals like MIS Quarterly, Journal of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Business Process Management Journal, International Studies on Management Organization, Journal of Organizational Change Management. He act as Editor in Chief of Journal of Knowledge Management.
Shlomo Y. Tarba is a Reader (Associate Professor), Head of Department of Strategy & International Business, and a member of Senior Management Team at the Business School, University of Birmingham, UK, and a Visiting Professor of Strategy at Coller Business School, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. His research interests include agility, organizational ambidexterity, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and resilience. He has published in the Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Relations, Human Resource Management, British Journal of Management, Journal of World Business, Management International Review, Group & Organization Management, Long Range Planning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Academy of Management Perspectives and California Management Review.
Pedro Soto-Acosta is a Full Professor of Management at the University of Murcia (Spain). He attended Postgraduate Courses in Management at Harvard University (USA) and received his PhD in Business Economics from the University of Murcia. He serves as Associate Editor and Senior Editor for several mainstream journals including Decision Sciences, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Electronic Markets, Information Systems Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, and Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. His work has been published in journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Technology Transfer, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, among others.
Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43-68.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
Carayannis E.G., & RakhmatullinR. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212-239.
Carayannis, E. G. (1999). Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and organizational cognition: the role of knowledge management. Technovation, 19(4), 219-231.
Cooper, A. C. (1971). Spin-offs and technical entrepreneurship. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (1), 2-6.
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.
Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Maggioni, V. (2017). Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 229-235.
Dewar, R.D., & Dutton, J.E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433.
Du, W., Pan, S. L., & Zuo, M. (2013). How to balance sustainability and profitability in technology organizations: An ambidextrous perspective. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 60(2), 366-385.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., and Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., &Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299-312.
Keller, R. T., Julian, S. D., & Kedia, B. L. (1996). A multinational study of work climate, job satisfaction, and the productivity of R&D teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(1), 48-55.
Lin, H. E., & McDonough III, E. F. (2011). Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 58(3), 497-509.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Marion, T., Dunlap, D., & Friar, J. (2012). Instilling the entrepreneurial spirit in your R&D team: What large firms can learn from successful start-ups. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(2), 323-337.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy?.Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-81.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
Roberts, E. B. (2004). A perspective on 50 years of the engineering management field. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(4), 398-403.
Smilor, R. W. (1987). Managing the incubator system: critical success factors to accelerate new company development. IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, (3), 146-155.
Tushman, M. L. (2004). From engineering management/R&D management, to the management of innovation, to exploiting and exploring over value nets: 50 years of research initiated by the IEEE-TEM. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 51(4), 409-411.
You can find the full Call for Papers here.
The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) has gained popularity since the publication of the mainstream book “Startup Communities” (Feld, 2012) and Isenberg ́s (2010) piece in the Harvard Business Review. Both authors highlight the importance of a supportive community as well as an enabling economic environment for the entrepreneur. As such, these publications embody a changing research focus in the entrepreneurship literature: away from personality-based explanations toward investigations of the entrepreneurial process in its broader social and economic environment (Spigel, 2017). The EE concept has proved particularly popular amongst scholars in entrepreneurship, management, and economic geography also due to its focus on the local and regional environment.
However, the idea that a place’s community, its economic and social context matter is not new. To the contrary, social science research has been increasingly encompassing the “systems” approach for some time already. Focusing on the multitude of actors, the environment and their dynamic network-like interactions to explain and predict socioeconomic outcomes within and across regions has given rise to concepts such as industrial districts (Marshall, 1920), industrial clusters (Porter, 2000), innovative milieu (Camagni, 1991) and, lately, the concept of (regional) innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992; Asheim et al., 2011). These concepts have proved enduringly popular, perhaps due to their ability to capture and explicate mechanisms usually assumed away in static analyses within the classical economics.
As of today, the innovation systems (IS) and entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) literatures have established themselves in their own right. Despite the obvious overlap in the topics covered and approaches taken, it appears that the two frameworks mainly evolve along parallel lines with limited dialog even though the innovation systems approach is considered a predecessor of the entrepreneurial ecosystems approach (Stam & Spigel, 2016).
In a new edited book we seek to explore the similarities and differences between the IS and EE approaches in their treatment of common research topics. Our broader goals are (1) to advance the discourse by bridging the two research traditions through the lessons one perspective can learn from the other and (2) to expand the frontiers of current knowledge by encouraging research into previously unexplored areas.
To this end, we invite extended abstract submissions for empirical, theoretical and review chapters that try to bridge the literatures on innovation systems (IS) or entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) within the blocks of topics listed below.
We particularly encourage submissions, which treat these topics within the Global South context, as well as submissions from female researchers.
Block I – Bridging the IS and EE perspectives
Despite the rising importance of the IS concept, which has been widely applied at local, regional, sectoral and national levels, the literature points to one important missing element within this approach, the individual agency and, as a consequence, the absence of the entrepreneur (Acs, Autio, & Szerb, 2014). The National Innovation Systems (NIS), or National Systems of Innovation (NSIs), research is firmly grounded in the Schumpeter Mark II tradition, which emphasizes the role of large corporations for R&D (Freeman & Soete, 1997). However, ever since the early work of Schumpeter (1934), Schumpeter Mark I innovation has been intimately linked with entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs are behind the ‘gales of creative destruction’ that bring change to the markets by creating new combinations. Despite this close relation, “the two literatures, those of NSIs and entrepreneurship, have largely developed in parallel, independent of one another, even though the concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship themselves are closely related, and both literatures trace at least some intellectual descent from Schumpeter” (Acs et al., 2014 p. 478).
Within Section I, we solicit papers that bridge the IS and EE perspectives via:
– theoretical contributions, which – by combining the two approaches – advance our current knowledge;
– critical reviews of the literature that explore similarities, differences, limitations and areas of
– any other types of contributions that fall within this area, e.g. explorations of various topics made explicitly from the two perspectives.
Block II – Sustainable development and inclusive growth
For decades, both economic development and environmental protection have been viewed as a zero- sum game of social wealth (Cohen & Winn, 2007). Governments have often failed in their attempts to leverage innovation and entrepreneurship to reduce inequality within the top-bottom approach (George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012). Recent research, however, highlights the ability of innovation and entrepreneurship to contribute to social welfare and ecologically sustainable economy from the bottom up (e.g. Dean & McMullen, 2007).
Within Section II, we solicit empirical research which explores – from the IS or EE perspectives via:
– the ways entrepreneurship and innovation contribute and shape sustainable development and
– social innovation and social entrepreneurship;
– responsible innovation and responsible entrepreneurship;
– possible limitations of the EE or IS perspectives to adequately explain any topics listed above.
Block III – The informal economy
Based on empirical observations of urban labor markets in Africa, the term informal economy was born (Portes & Haller, 2010). It is now widely accepted that the informal sector is not only a persistent phenomenon but also a growing one. However, despite the recognition that informal innovations and informal entrepreneurship are a part of economic reality in many developing countries (Arocena & Sutz, 2000), little attention has been paid to these aspects in both the IS and EE literatures.
Within Section III, we solicit empirical contributions that adopt systems approach to the study of:
– the informal sector in general;
– frugal innovation;
– informal entrepreneurship and informal innovation.
Submission, review and publication
Please submit extended chapter abstracts (800-1,000 words) together with a full list of contributors and a tentative title to Alexandra Tsvetkova (email@example.com) no later than Sunday, August 19th, 2018. The title, the list of authors, their affiliations and references (if any) are excluded from the word count.
The editors will screen all submissions for clarity, relevance and expected contribution to the book theme. Selected abstracts will be incorporated into book proposal to be submitted to Edward Elgar Publishers. We have discussed the book plan with the editor and received a preliminary approval. We expect to sign a book contract in October 2018.
We expect to follow this timeline:
Chapter proposal (500 – 1,000 words) submission deadline: August 19th, 2018 Acceptance notification: September 3rd, 2018
Chapter submission deadline: January 13th, 2019
Expected publication: Fall 2019 –Winter 2010.
Once the contract is signed, all details of the book publication timeline will be sent to participating authors. Please be aware that the chapters must be original and comply with Edward Elgar’s submission guidelines (more information will be provided at the time of chapter acceptance). All chapters will undergo a double-blind review process and will be checked with specialized software for plagiarism.
Alexandra Tsvetkova (Ohio State University, USA)
Jana Schmutzler (Universidad del Norte, Colombia)
Rhiannon Pugh (Uppsala University, Sweden)
You can download the full Call for Chapters here.
Special issue call for papers from the Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy
Rationale for the special issue:
1. Explore regional and location-based approaches to the establishment, development and growth of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
2. Consider the role of public policy, how it supports and limits the emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
3. Advance conceptual and empirical study within the subject as it relates to new and potentially innovative approaches to public policies aimed at supporting entrepreneurship within specified geographic locations.
4. Enhance consideration of the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems in non-obvious locations, such as, small cities, university towns and sparsely populated rural areas.
5. Allow for greater consideration of ‘entrepreneurial learning’ and ‘entrepreneurship education’ within the context of the establishment and growth of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Interest in the concept of an entrepreneurial ecosystem has been growing in recent years (World Economic Forum, 2013). The concept is rooted in ideas about the role of clusters in geographic locations and is linked to work about industrial districts and clusters of innovation (Feldman, Francis and Bercovitz, 2005). An entrepreneurial ecosystem can be defined in a number of different ways but it is common to consider an entrepreneurial ecosystem to be. “…the union of localized cultural outlooks, social networks, investment capital, universities and active economic policies that create environments of supportive of innovation-based ventures (Spigel, 2015). The “eco” part of the word links back to an analogy of ecological systems that are morphogenic, flexible and constantly adapting in complex ways, while the “system” aspect of the definition suggests an organized quality to the way in which overall interactions occur. In recent public policy the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has become popular and policy professionals are increasingly interested to explore how they can create such ecosystems in their locality and for their communities (World Economic Forum, 2013). Typically entrepreneurial ecosystems have a geographic component and may be considered to be located in a region, a city, a specific part of a city or around an organization (e.g. a university, research lab or major corporation). This special issue is, therefore, interested in the specific public policy considerations for the development and maintenance of environments that seen to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.
Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has been developing and there is much prior relevant work on clusters, industrial districts and clusters of innovation (Roundy, 2016). Most study of the subject has been focused on major urban areas, such as, Silicon Valley, Boston, Washington DC and Boulder Colorado (Feldman, 2014) and more recently Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Richmond (Harper-Anderson, 2018).. Study has focused on the attributes of entrepreneurial ecosystems, with a focus on the various components, how they interact and what aspects enable growth and development (Pitelis, 2012). Most studies in the subject look historically at the process through which an ecosystem has become established within a particular locality or focuses on conceptual arguments (Feldman, 2014). Current thinking has been criticized for focusing on predominantly successful ecosystems in major urban environments, for listing attributes without much consideration of causality or for neglecting the temporal nature and phases through which ecosystems might develop (Roundy, 2016). There are also disagreements in the literature over the exact role of certain attributes, some for example – show that universities are critically important while others are less conclusive. The role of public policy in supporting and creating entrepreneurial ecosystems is likewise unclear (Feld, 2012).
The purpose of the special issue is to consider a number of key areas in this stream of research and specifically to investigate the public policy implications of the subject. First, the special issue welcomes studies that explore entrepreneurial ecosystems in a general sense and we are specifically inviting authors to explore the public policy aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Aspects of public policy that could be of interest might include, but are not limited to: business support policies; public or government venture finance; makerspaces, incubation, and acceleration programs; government actions such as zoning, licensing, regulation and taxation on ecosystem formation and development; the role of immigration and/or migration; and, programs designed to support venture creation, small business survival and venture growth. Second, we are particularly interested in receiving submissions that explore entrepreneurial ecosystems in less obvious localities. In particular, we are interested in rural locations, smaller cities and university towns. The purpose of our focus to offset the overwhelming focus of research on urban locations that have established ecosystems. We are also interested in ecosystems that may perhaps be in a different stage of development and may not be established (e.g. starting out, becoming established and/or beginning to fail, may all be interesting contexts). Finally, the special issue is interested in the educational and learning aspects of entrepreneurial ecosystems. For example, what exact role do universities play? Do educational programs support the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems and how? To what extent does an entrepreneurial ecosystem encourage different forms of learning and how important is this in the success of the ecosystem?
This journal issue welcomes article submissions on any topics related to the public policy and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Papers that address the following topics are particularly encouraged:
– Case studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems in non-obvious localities, in particular rural locations and smaller communities
– Studies that analyze empirically the impact of certain forms of public policy on the viability of an ecosystem
– Articles that take a more temporal perspective and/or consider entrepreneurial ecosystems at different stages of development
– Conceptual studies that consider public policy innovations and how they might improve the capacity of localities to build and maintain viable ecosystems
– Studies that explore the role of the university within an entrepreneurial ecosystem
– Pedagogic and program reviews that examine specific programs and how they help build entrepreneurial ecosystems
Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not currently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal. Submission must be made online at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/jepp/Default.aspx. Submissions should be prepared according to the Manuscript Guidelines found at http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=jepp.
When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop down menu on page four of the submission process. This special issue is aligned with USASBE 2019 and authors will be expected to attend a special issue pre-conference workshop on Thursday January 24th January to present initial drafts of papers. The following process will be followed:
– October 31st 2018 submission of manuscript
– October 31st to November 9th bench rejection process
– November 9th 2018 confirmation of presentation at USASBE 2019
– January 24th 2019 presentation at pre-conference workshop at USASBE 2019
– January 31st 2019 1st stage of peer review process begins
– March 29th 2019 peer reviews returned to authors
– May 31st 2019 2nd submission of papers
– May 31st to June 29th 2019 final reviews and editorial review
– July 12th 2019 – final version of special issue submitted to journal
The submission deadline for this special issue is October 31st 2018 submission of manuscript.
G. Jason Jolley: G. Jason Jolley is an Associate Professor of Rural Economic Development and MPA Director at the George V. Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University. At Ohio University, he also serves as a Research Fellow in the Center for Entrepreneurship and directs Ohio University’s portion of the US Economic Development Administration University Center (joint with Bowling Green State University). His applied research portfolio includes serving as principal investigator on a subcontract with the Appalachian Partnership for Economic Growth to support a Regional Innovation Cluster (RIC) project with the U.S. Small Business Administration. He also leads the Voinovich School’s portion of the Ohio Economic Development Institute, an Ohio Economic Development Association initiative, in partnership with JobsOhio and Ohio University’s Voinovich School, to provide state-level certification to Ohio economic development practitioners. Dr. Jolley’s research focuses on economic development, entrepreneurship, and tax policy. Secondary research interests include public-private partnerships, public engagement in decision-making, non-regulatory governance, and corporate social responsibility.
Luke Pittaway: Dr. Luke Pittaway is the Copeland Professor of Entrepreneurship and Chair of the Management Department at Ohio University (Athens, OH). Prior to becoming chair, he served as Director of the Center for Entrepreneurship and held a senior leadership role within the Department of Management including scheduling, junior faculty mentoring and area coordination for entrepreneurship programs and new program development. He was formerly the William A. Freeman Distinguished Chair in Free Enterprise and the Director of the Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership at Georgia Southern University where he managed programs in entrepreneurship until May 2013. Dr. Pittaway has previously worked at the University of Sheffield (UK), Lancaster University (UK) and the University of Surrey (UK). He has been a Research and Education Fellow with the National Council of Graduate Entrepreneurship and an Advanced Institute of Management Research Scholar. He is on a number of editorial boards including: International Small Business Journal and International Journal of Management Reviews. Dr. Pittaway’s research focuses on entrepreneurship education and learning and he has a range of other interests including: entrepreneurial behavior; networking; entrepreneurial failure; business growth; and, corporate venturing. He was awarded USASBE’s 2018 Entrepreneurship Educator of the Year Award for his scholarship and contribution to the development of the subject.
Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Feldman, M. P. (2014). The Character of Innovative Places: Entrepreneurial Strategy, Economic Development, and Prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1): 9-20.
Feldman, M. P., Francis, J. and Bercovitz, J. (2005). Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm: Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters. Regional Studies, 39(1): 129-141.
Harper-Anderson, E. (2018). Intersections of Partnership and Leadership in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Comparing Three US Regions. Economic Development Quarterly, 0891242418763727.
Pitelis, C. (2012). Clusters, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Co-creation, and Appropriability: A Conceptual Framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6): 1359-1388.
Spigel, B. (2015). The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1): 49-72.
Roundy, P. T. (2016). Start-up Community Narratives: The Discursive Construction of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(2): 232-248.
World Economic Forum (2013). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Company Growth Dynamics. Report Summary for the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2013, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_EntrepreneurialEcosystems_Report_2013.pdf
You can find the full Call for Papers here.
Special issue call for papers from Entrepreneurship & Regional Development
Entrepreneurial activity exhibits significant geographical variations within and across countries, both in terms of start-ups and scale-ups. As entrepreneurs typically found their businesses in the localities in which they are already living and working, and businesses, once they have started trading, rarely move to distant locations, this suggests that some geographical environments are more conducive to entrepreneurship while others inhibit it. The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) has emerged in recent years as a frame- work to understand the nature of places in which entrepreneurial activity flourishes. Spigel (2017) defines entrepreneurial ecosystems as follows: ‘combinations of social, political, eco- nomic, and cultural elements within a region that support the development and growth of innovative start-ups and encourage nascent entrepreneurs and other actors to take the risks of starting, funding, and otherwise assisting high-risk ventures’.
However, the existing literature has several shortcomings. Despite some progress (Acs et al. 2017), the concept is under-theorised. It remains unclear how entrepreneurial ecosys- tems is distinctive from other concepts that seek to explain the geographical concentration of entrepreneurial activity (e.g. clusters, learning regions, regional innovation systems). Much of the literature comprises ‘superficial generalisations … rather than [on] rigorous social science research’ (Stam and Spigel 2017, 2). Specifically, empirical studies are static rather than dynamic which does not capture the genesis and evolution of EEs (Mason and Brown 2014; Mack and Mayer 2016; Alvedalen and Boschma 2017). There is little consideration of the context in which entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge (Mack and Mayer 2016). The net- work of interactions of individual elements in the EEs has not been sufficiently explored (Motoyama and Watkins 2014). And the causal mechanisms are weak: it is not clear how the various elements in entrepreneurial ecosystems enhance entrepreneurship (Alvedalen and Boschma 2017; Stam and Spigel 2017).
Accordingly, this special issue invites papers that address the questions:
– How do the dynamics of people, process and place nurture entrepreneurial behaviour?
– What are place-based dynamics that generate greater entrepreneurial behaviours through managing the inputs and processes that result in entrepreneurial outputs and outcomes?
Entrepreneurial behaviour can be defined broadly within a range of activity including start-up, scale-up, opportunity recognition, economic development, market development, etc. Specifically, we identify a need for papers that address the following themes:
(1) Papers that focus on individuals within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, investigating how do people work within and interact with firms and institutions in an entrepreneurial ecosystem to bring about the outputs and outcomes that result from entrepreneurial behaviour.
(2) Papers that focus on how the different elements in an entrepreneurial ecosystem interact with one another and how these interactions develop over time? How much path dependency is there in the system?
(3) Papers that focus on the role of networks in the entrepreneurial ecosystem context. Can these interactions be mapped and analyzed? In addition, we also welcome papers that adopt a ‘pipelines’ perspective (Bathelt, Malmberg, and Maskell 2004), examining the extent, role and significance of the external networks of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Papers that also consider network tipping points, critical densities and vitality that assist to explain EE behaviour would also be valuable.
(4) Papers that examine the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. How do they develop over time? What are the causal relationships? What are the processes by which entrepreneurial ecosystems develop and change over time? Why do some emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems fail to develop? And why do some go into decline? And, perhaps drawing on recent work on resilience (e.g. Simmie and Martin 2010; Martin 2011; Williams and Vorley 2014; Boschma 2015), what are the processes that result in the revitalisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems that are in decline or moribund.
(5) Papers that address policy issues. Policy makers are continually searching for instruments that can be implemented to stimulate entrepreneurial activity and have therefore been active in seeing to promote entrepreneurial ecosystems. What roles do governments, non-profit organizations and private companies, as well as key individuals, play in the emergence and growth of entrepreneurial ecosystems and what types of support are in evidence? What is their rationale for intervention? And what has been the effect of intervention? How does policy specifically influence elements of an EE and conversely how do elements of EEs influence policy?
(6) Papers that take into account industry specific EEs and how these develop individually or integrate more broadly into regional or city based EEs. What are the layered effects of EEs and interactions between supra and sub entrepreneurial ecosystems? How does cognitive and geographic distance influence the relationships within and between EEs? What is the effect of global relationships on local and/or industry EE dynamics?
(7) Papers that also consider the methods, data and approaches that support EE research would be highly valued as a means to contribute to building common approaches and developing a research community.
(8) Papers that critique the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Call is open from 1 July 2018
Deadline for submissions: 28 February 2019
Allan O’Connor is an Associate Professor in Enterprise Dynamics (from 5th February 2018) and has been an active researcher of and contributor to the local dynamics of his home city entrepreneurial ecosystem. He has previously led and contributed to Special Issue editions for the Journal of Futures Studies and the Small Business Economics Journal. In addition he has been co-editor on two volumes of invited chapters; one for the Springer series International Studies in Entrepreneurship and the second for University of Adelaide Press.
Colin Mason is the founding editor of Venture Capital: an international journal of entrepre- neurial finance (Taylor and Francis) now in its 20th year of publication. He is on the editorial boards of eight journals, including Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. He is co- author of a widely cited OECD publication: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth-Oriented Enterprises http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/entrepreneurial-ecosystems.pdf.
David Audretsch is a Distinguished Professor and Ameritech Chair of Economic Development at Indiana University, where he is also serves as Director of the Institute for Development Strategies. He also is an Honorary Professor of Industrial Economics and Entrepreneurship at the WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management in Germany and a Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London. His research has focused on the links between entrepreneurship, government policy, innovation, economic development and global competitiveness. He is co-author of The Seven Secrets of Germany, published by Oxford University Press. He is co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal. He was awarded the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research by the Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum. He has received honorary doctorate degrees from the University of Augsburg in Germany and Jonköping University in Sweden. Audretsch also was awarded the Schumpeter Prize from the University of Wuppertal in Germany.
Morgan P. Miles is currently is an associate editor of Journal of Business Research and was a founding co-editor of the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. He has published in jour- nals such as Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Small Business Management, Technovation, Journal of Business Ethics and Journal of Business Research.
Acs, Z., E. Stam, D. Audretsch, and A. O’Connor. 2017. “The Lineages of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Approach.” Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal 49 (1): 1–10.
Alvedalen, J., and R. Boschma. 2017. “A Critical Review of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Research: Towards a Future Research Agenda.” European Planning Studies 25 (6): 887–903.
Bathelt, H., A. Malmberg, and P. Maskell. 2004. “Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation.” Progress in Human Geography 28 (1): 31–56.
Boschma, R. 2015. “Towards an Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Resilience.” Regional Studies 49 (5): 733–751.
Mack, E., and H. Mayer. 2016.“The Evolutionary Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.”Urban Studies 53 (10): 2118–2133.
Martin, R. 2011. “Regional Economic Resilience, Hysteresis and Recessionary Shocks.” Journal of Economic Geography 12 (1): 1–32.
Mason, C., and R. Brown. 2014. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship.” Background paper prepared for the workshop organised by the OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague, Netherlands.
Motoyama, Y., and K. K. Watkins. 2014. “Examining the Connections within the Startup Ecosystem: A Case Study of St. Louis.” http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/researchreportsandcovers/2014/09/examining_the_connections_within_the_startup_ecosystem.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3 (1): 27–43.
Spigel, B. 2017. “The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice 41 (1): 49–72.
Stam, E., and B. Spigel. 2017. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” In Handbook for Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, edited by R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen, and Z. Wang. London: Sage.
Williams, N., and T. Vorley. 2014. “Economic Resilience and Entrepreneurship: Lessons from the Sheffield
City Region.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 26 (3–4): 257–281.
The full Call for Papers has been published in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 471-474, and can be downloaded here.
The Batten Institute at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business invites applications to its 2018–19 Fellows program, which supports diverse scholarly research projects that address topics of consequence in entrepreneurship and innovation. This year the program especially welcomes proposals that explore the antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Many regional elements contribute to entrepreneurial ecosystems, including “localized cultural outlooks, social networks, investment capital, universities, and active economic policies,”i among others. The Batten Institute is eager to support research in this emerging field in order to foster understanding of how entrepreneurial activity advances local prosperity.
Submissions for this year’s program are not limited to ecosystems research, although the selection committee will give special consideration to projects on this topic.
The Batten Institute, a center for the study and practice of entrepreneurship and innovation at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, offers limited research support for prominent thought leaders or researchers of high promise who have an active agenda that aligns with the mission and priorities of the Institute. The Batten Fellows program provides funding and other resources to generate new knowledge about entrepreneurship and innovation.ii The aims of the program are to:
– Support work related to current Darden and Batten Institute research initiatives;
– Advance research that results in academic articles, books, and other high-impact publications;
– Provide thought leadership of importance to managers, policy makers, and the public; and
– Stimulate the intellectual life of the Institute, the Darden School, and the University of Virginia.
The Institute invites established university faculty, emerging scholars, seasoned executives, and policy makers of distinction or outstanding promise to apply. Preference will be given to applicants with a PhD or other terminal degree, and to those who are researchers in good standing at a university or other research-oriented institution. Exceptions will be made for individuals of significant accomplishment who propose compelling research projects that have a high likelihood of contributing to the Institute’s thought leadership in entrepreneurship and innovation.
Batten Fellows are eligible to receive funding of up to $10,000 to support a specific research project. These grants may be used only to reimburse research expenses, including but not limited to: project-related travel, transcription, data collection and databases, research assistance, and relevant subscriptions. As a matter of policy, grants may not be used for salary support or honoraria.
Appointments as Batten Fellows are for the period of a single academic year. The Institute highly values its Fellows and expects to engage with their work beyond their appointment. Ideally, the Fellowship period establishes a foundation for ongoing collaboration with faculty and the Institute.
By accepting an appointment as a Batten Fellow, the appointee accepts the responsibility for acknowledging the support of the Batten Institute in the resulting intellectual outputs, including but not limited to: papers, articles, briefings, books, cases, and conferences. Fellows will also permit the Batten Institute to feature their funded projects on its website and in other electronic or printed publications.
Outcomes and Activities
Projects are expected to result in publishable research, including peer-reviewed journal articles, books, conference presentations, and scholarly seminars, all of which should advance the research programs of the Batten Institute. It is the expectation of the Batten Institute that Fellows will not only pursue an independent research agenda, but also engage actively with Darden faculty, students, and the wider University community. It is the Institute’s desire that, when appropriate, Fellows’ interactions extend to other schools at the University of Virginia.
As a general rule, the activities of a Batten Fellow include:
1. Pursuing independent research and writing projects as specified in the applicant’s proposal;
2. Collaborating on research and writing projects with Darden faculty members and staff;
3. Presenting seminars or workshops to the Darden community; and
4. Publishing a Batten Briefing that addresses the research focus of the Fellowship.
Review and Selection
The application must include a proposal for research to be pursued during the Fellowship period and a detailed budget (3-page max.).
Application deadline: 1 May 2018
The Batten Fellows Review Committee will select Fellows based on: 1) the scholarly merits of the research proposal; 2) whether the proposed research falls in the domains of entrepreneurship or innovation;ii 3) collaboration opportunities for Darden and University of Virginia scholars; 4) the quality of the expected intellectual contribution; 5) the likelihood that the research project will result in the publication of papers in peer-reviewed academic journals and other research-oriented outlets; and 6) the scholarly promise or accomplishments of the applicant.
How to Apply
Please use the link below to upload your proposal, budget, and CV, preferably in PDF format.
Please direct queries to:
Andrew C. King
Associate Director of Research and Intellectual Capital
Batten Institute, Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia KingA@Darden.Virginia.edu
You can download the full Call for Proposals here.