The contribution of higher education-based technology start-up incubators to the co-production of knowledge, innovation and growth

Abstract

<jats:p> Start-up incubators are one of a number of micropolicy interventions used by states to support their technology entrepreneurs. Since 2000, the number of incubators in the United States has almost trebled while that in Europe has more than doubled. This article outlines the challenges involved in attempting to evaluate the contribution of the higher education technology start-up incubator process. It advocates theory-based evaluation (TBE) methodology as a possible solution for effective evaluation (and policy learning) in complex research settings such as this, where a study is unable, for myriad reasons, to meet the stringent requirements of experimental research design. TBE delivers findings on the contribution of the multiple factors influencing a result, thus showing whether the incubation process made a contribution to an observed result and in what way. An exploratory case study is used in this article to illustrate how the proposed TBE approach could work. </jats:p>

The impact of university STEM assets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence

“…Seven of the 14 incubator-focused studies [ 15 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 25 – 27 ], as well as one of the accelerator studies [ 29 ], were considered to have a high level of involvement with universities. Given that university business incubators are initiated by, and frequently located in or very close to, universities, this should not be surprising.…”

“…The quantitative elements of the mixed methods approaches included surveys [ 16 ], network analysis [ 19 ] and hypothesis testing using Pearson Chi-Square tests [ 23 ]. Among the qualitative and mixed method approaches, a case study design was frequently adopted [ 16 – 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 31 ], with interviews (typically semi-structured) being the most commonly used method [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 31 ]. However, these similar approaches were selected from differing theoretical frameworks, such as the absorptive capacity framework [ 27 ], a communications perspective [ 19 ], a more contextual Theory-based Impact Evaluation [ 17 , 18 ], and the Identity-Legitimacy-Life Cycle (ILLC) model [ 26 ].…”

Situated learning in a business incubator: Encouraging students to become real entrepreneurs

“…There is an extensive literature dealing with the performance of business incubators (Albort-Morant and Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016; Bergek and Norrman, 2008; Blok et al, 2017; Bone et al, 2017, 2019; Buckley and Davis, 2018; Lukeš et al, 2019; Mian et al, 2016; Sedita et al, 2019). Hackett and Dilts (2004) claim that the first business incubator was established in the USA in 1959.…”

“…As summarised by the authors: ‘Specifically, results suggest that entrepreneurs may rely on social capital and prior knowledge and experiences in different ways, depending on the type of opportunity associated with their venture’ (Smith et al, 2019: 90). Based on their study of Irish business incubators, Buckley and Davis (2018) stress the importance of individuals and/or teams having the appropriate levels of ‘absorptive capacity’ to make the best use of incubator services.…”

Disruptive Innovation at the Base-of-the-Pyramid: Negotiating the Missing Links

“…Alvarez and Barney [4] argue that entrepreneurship is not created equal regarding growth outcomes and poverty alleviation. Therefore, policy emphasis in most developing countries has shifted to so-called 'gazelles', fast-growing, innovative, and typically technology-based entrepreneurs who provide better economic outcomes compared to subsistence entrepreneurs [5]. It has become essential to find the appropriate formulations that can encourage the growth of these fast-growing new businesses in emerging economy contexts to stimulate growth and employment and improve standards of living.…”