It takes all kinds: understanding diverse entrepreneurial ecosystems

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems with both rural and urban features, as well as the varied system requirements of differing types of entrepreneurs within such an ecosystem. Design/methodology/approach Using a mixed-methods case study approach, the study examined the Roanoke–Blacksburg region in western Virginia. Researchers conducted quantitative analysis of entrepreneurial metrics and network relationships, as well as qualitative analysis of data collected through entrepreneur surveys and stakeholder interviews. Findings Findings suggest entrepreneurs of different types faced disparate challenges and uneven access to resources and networks. Innovation-driven “gazelle” enterprises (IDEs) had numerous growth-related resource needs, including angel, venture and scale-up funding; prototyping equipment and facilities; and translational research by local universities. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) required more entrepreneurial education programming, subsidized main street office space and clearer pathways through the government regulatory system. A key finding was also concerned with the different ways by which IDEs and SMEs accessed key resources within the ecosystem, illustrated through social network analysis, and supported through qualitative feedback. Research limitations/implications Study findings were limited by a relatively low survey response rate from some entrepreneur demographic segments, particularly minorities. Originality/value The study represents an in-depth, multi-methods approach that offers insight into two under-researched areas in the ecosystem literature: the dynamics of urban – rural ecosystems and the varied system requirements of different entrepreneur types. The paper includes three overarching recommendations for policy and practice: improved collection and sharing of regional metrics; differentiated approaches to entrepreneurial support based on entrepreneur type; and enhanced efforts to advance inclusive entrepreneurship.

Barriers and Drivers to Accessing and Using Workforce and Technical Assistance Resources for Small and Medium Manufacturers (SMMs) in Rural Regions

“…For instance, Oberhauser, Pratt, and Turnage (2001) suggested that more rural economies, particularly those in Appalachia, rely on more informal kinship and community-based networks-networks not often tapped by more formal WD and TA organizations. Likewise, in a related study of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the authors of this study found that rural regions may thrive with the presence of a variety of interconnected and permeable informal networks where relationships can translate to tangible activities (Cowell, Lyon-Hill, & Tate, 2018). Another reason for SMMs' and service providers' inability to access or develop these networks is the economic upheaval that has occurred in many rural regions of the United States.…”

Inclusive innovation and the “ordinary” city: Incidental or integral?

“…Like comprehensive technology career pathway systems that connect workers to training for employment in local knowledge-intensive industries, entrepreneurial ecosystems emphasize the integration of multiple services to meet the specific needs of individual entrepreneurs (Cowell et al., 2018). These “ecosystems” represent coordinated efforts among a wide range of support organizations to provide business development advice, incubation and acceleration services, work space, mentorship, and start-up financing (Harrison and Glasmeier, 1997; Motoyama, 2020).…”

Challenges for the Measurement of Innovation Ecosystems and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Brazil

“…Ao passo que há dados suficientes para mapear o ambiente institucional, a carência de métricas sobre traços individuais de empreendedores, capazes de afetar a atividade empreendedora em nível local (Audrestch e Belitski, 2017), ainda persiste. Na tentativa de resolver esse problema e mensurar os relacionamentos entre organizações de apoio a empresas, empresas e indivíduos, Cowell et al (2018) utilizaram dados qualitativos, extraídos de entrevistas e grupos focais com empreendedores, bem como a análise de redes, mapeadas a partir de interações, identificadas em pesquisas sobre o uso de recursos dos empreendedores, e na base de dados do Twitter. Credit et al (2018), quando escreveram um artigo sobre o estado da arte das métricas de ecossistemas empreendedores, observaram que a maior parte dos estudos utiliza dados primários, devido a uma carência de dados secundários a respeito do empreendedorismo em geral.…”