Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 13, 2019

Beyond territorial conceptions of entrepreneurial ecosystems: The dynamic spatiality of knowledge brokering in seed accelerators

Andreas Kuebart and Oliver Ibert

Abstract

In spatial terms, entrepreneurial ecosystems are mostly conceptualized as confined to a specific territory. At the same time, the growing relevance of entrepreneurship in digital fields is underlined. This paper argues that this is contradictory since territorial thinking underestimates the disruptive qualities of new entrepreneurial practices in the digital economy. Using process-based, qualitative case studies on seed accelerators from four regions: Amsterdam, Berlin, Detroit and Hamburg, this study seeks to explore knowledge brokering in entrepreneurship ecosystems and analyzes the corresponding spatial dynamics. Our findings imply that startups in digital fields share knowledge about business models and technologies in a way that is unattainable in classical knowledge clusters. Moreover, we show that most of the observed entrepreneurial practices in seed accelerators crucially rely on extra-regional resources and thus remain only incompletely embedded into the respective regions. Against the background of these results, we suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems should not be primarily viewed as territorial phenomena. Instead, we suggest that the territorial view on entrepreneurship ecosystems should be complemented with a topological view that foregrounds entrepreneurship as a trans-locally shared practice that is tangent to different regions in different ways.

Acknowledgement

This paper emerged out of the project institutionally funded lead-project “Local anchors of translocal knowledge communities: New focal points of knowledge generation and their territoriality” conducted from 2015 to 2018 at the Leibniz-Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS) in Erkner, Germany. As member of the Leibniz-Association the IRS is co-funded by the National Government and the Federal States of Germany. The authors are grateful to their colleagues and project collaborators Suntje Schmidt, Verena Brinks and Steffi Brewig. Further, we would like to thank Jörg Sydow, Carolin Auschra and Alice Rettig for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Furthermore, earlier versions have been presented at the AAG Annual meeting 2017, GeoInno 2018 and EGOS 2018. We would like to thank the convenors (Elisabeth Mack, Heike Mayer, Murray Rice, Sami Mahroum, Koen Frenken and Erik Stam as well as Issy Drori, Jochen Koch and Mike Wright) and all participants of the respective sessions. Finally, we wish to express our gratitude to four anonymous referees of the Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie.

References

Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems, in: Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.10.1002/sej.1266Search in Google Scholar

Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B. O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8Search in Google Scholar

Alvedalen, J. Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903.10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694Search in Google Scholar

Amin, A. Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge – Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253326.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Amin, A. Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353–369.10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.003Search in Google Scholar

Audretsch, D. B. Belitski, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1–22.10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8Search in Google Scholar

Bathelt, H., Glückler, J. (2011). The Relational Economy – Geographies of Knowing and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199587384.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bathelt, H. Cohendet, P. (2014). The creation of knowledge: Local building, global accessing and economic development-toward an agenda. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(5), 1–14.10.1093/jeg/lbu027Search in Google Scholar

Bliemel, M., Flores, R., De Klerk, S. Miles, M. P. (2018). Accelerators as start-up infrastructure for entrepreneurial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(1–2), 133–149.10.1080/08985626.2018.1537152Search in Google Scholar

Braun, T, Ferreira, A., Schmidt, T. & Sydow, J. (2018). British Journal of Management, 29(4), 652-669.10.1111/1467-8551.12256Search in Google Scholar

Brown, J. Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116Search in Google Scholar

Brown, R. Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11–30.10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7Search in Google Scholar

Burns, J. (2010). Cross-Case Synthesis and Analysis. In Mills, A., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E. (Eds.), Encyclopedia Of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 264–266.Search in Google Scholar

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.10.1086/421787Search in Google Scholar

Crevoisier, O. & Jeannerat, H. (2009). Territorial knowledge dynamics: From the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies 17(8), 1223–1241.10.1080/09654310902978231Search in Google Scholar

Dowling, R., Lloyd, K. Suchet-Pearson, S. (2016). Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview. Progress in Human Geography, 40(5), 679–686.10.1177/0309132515596880Search in Google Scholar

Drori, I. Wright, M. (2018). Accelerators: characteristics, trends and the new entrepreneurial ecosystem. In Wright, M., Drori, I. (Eds.), Accelerators: Successful Venture Creation and Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1–20.10.4337/9781786434098.00005Search in Google Scholar

Elger, T. (2010). Limited-Depth Case Study. In Mills, A., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E. (Eds.), Encyclopedia Of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 530–532.Search in Google Scholar

Faulconbridge, J. R. (2010). Global architects: Learning and innovation through communities and constellations of practice. Environment and Planning A, 42(12), 2842–2858.10.1068/a4311Search in Google Scholar

Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119204459Search in Google Scholar

Ferrary, M., Granovetter, M. (2009). The role of venture capital firms in Silicon Valley’s complex innovation network. Economy and Society, 38(2), 326–359.10.1080/03085140902786827Search in Google Scholar

Gauthier, J., Penzel, M. & Marmer, M. (2017). Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2017. San Francisco: Startupgenome.Search in Google Scholar

Goswami, K., Mitchell, J. R. Bhagavatula, S. (2018). Accelerator expertise: Understanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the Bangalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 117–150.10.1002/sej.1281Search in Google Scholar

Grabher, G. Ibert, O. (2006). Bad company? The ambiguity of personal knowledge networks. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(3), 251–271.10.1093/jeg/lbi014Search in Google Scholar

Grabher, G. Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as an asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 97–123.10.1093/jeg/lbt014Search in Google Scholar

Herbert, S. (2010). A Taut Rubber Band: Theory and Empirics in Qualitative Geographic Research. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang L. McDowell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (69–81). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.10.4135/9780857021090.n5Search in Google Scholar

Hochberg, Y. V. (2016). Accelerating Entrepreneurs and Ecosystems: The Seed Accelerator Model. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 16(1), 25–51.10.1086/684985Search in Google Scholar

Ibert, O. (2004). Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the Munich software ecology. Research Policy, 33(10), 1529–1546.10.1016/j.respol.2004.08.010Search in Google Scholar

Ibert, O., Hautala, J. Jauhiainen, J. S. (2015). From cluster to process: New economic geographic perspectives on practices of knowledge creation. Geoforum, 65, 323–327.10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.06.023Search in Google Scholar

Kujath, H. J., Zillmer, S. (2010) Räume der Wissensökonomie: Implikationen für das Deutscher Städtesystem. Münster: Lit Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Klagge, B. Peter, C. (2009). Wissensmanagement in Netzwerken unterschiedlicher Reichweite Das Beispiel des Private Equity-Sektors in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 53(1–2), 69–88.10.1515/zfw.2009.0005Search in Google Scholar

Kuebart, A. Ibert, O. (2019). Choreographies of entrepreneurship. How different formats of co-presence are combined to facilitate knowledge creation in seed accelerator programs. Raumforschung und Raumordnung 78(1), 1–17.10.2478/rara-2019-0047Search in Google Scholar

Langley, P. Leyshon, A. (2016). Platform capitalism: the intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 2(2).10.2218/finsoc.v3i1.1936Search in Google Scholar

Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355Search in Google Scholar

Lundin, R. A. Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-USearch in Google Scholar

Mack, E. Mayer, H. (2015). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 1–16.10.1177/0042098015586547Search in Google Scholar

Malecki, E. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass 12(3), 1–21.10.1111/gec3.12359Search in Google Scholar

Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 34(3), 429–44910.1068/a3457Search in Google Scholar

Meuser, M. & Nagel, U. (1991). ExpertInneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht: Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: Garz, D., Kraimer, K. (eds.): Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 441–471.10.1007/978-3-322-97024-4_14Search in Google Scholar

Miller, P. Bound, K. (2011). The Startup Factories – The Rise of Accelerator Programmes to Support New Technology Ventures. London: Nesta Working paper, (40).Search in Google Scholar

Moulaert, F. & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies 37(3), 289–302.10.1080/0034340032000065442Search in Google Scholar

Motoyama, Y. Knowlton, K. (2016). From resource munificence to ecosystem integration: the case of government sponsorship in St. Louis. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5–6), 448–470.10.1080/08985626.2016.1186749Search in Google Scholar

Müller, F. C. Ibert, O. (2015). (Re-)sources of innovation: Understanding and comparing time-spatial innovation dynamics through the lens of communities of practice. Geoforum, 65, 338–350.10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.007Search in Google Scholar

Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social Networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100Search in Google Scholar

Packard, M. D., Clark, B. B. Klein, P. G. (2017). Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organization Science, 28(5), 840–856.10.1287/orsc.2017.1143Search in Google Scholar

Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M. Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50–51(3), 13–24.10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Peck, J. Whiteside, H. (2016). Financializing Detroit. Economic Geography, 95(1), 1–3410.1080/00130095.2015.1116369Search in Google Scholar

Rutten, R. (2016). Beyond proximities: The socio-spatial dynamics of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 41(2), 1–19.10.1177/0309132516629003Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, S. (2015). Balancing the spatial localisation ‘Tilt’: Knowledge spillovers in processes of knowledge-intensive services. Geoforum, 65, 374–386.10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.05.009Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, S., Brinks, V. Brinkhoff, S. (2014). Innovation and creativity labs in Berlin Organizing temporary spatial configurations for innovations. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1), 232–247.10.1515/zfw.2014.0016Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, S., Müller, F., Ibert, O. Brinks, V. (2018). Open Region: Creating and exploiting opportunities for innovation at the regional scale. European Urban and Regional Studies, 25(2), 187–205.10.1177/0969776417705942Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, S., Ibert, O., Kuebart, A. & Kühn, J (2016). Open Creative Labs in Deutschland. Typologisierung, Verbreitung und Entwicklungsbedingungen. Erkner: Leibniz Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung.Search in Google Scholar

Shearmur, R., Carrincazeaux Doloreux, D. (2016). The geographies of innovations: Beyond one-size-fits-all. In R. Shearmur, C. Carrincazaeux, D. Doloreux (eds.) Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 1–16.10.4337/9781784710774.00006Search in Google Scholar

Simmel, G. (1908). Soziologie – Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot.10.3790/978-3-428-53725-9Search in Google Scholar

Sorenson, O. (2017). Regional ecologies of entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(5), 959–974.10.1093/jeg/lbx031Search in Google Scholar

Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.10.1111/etap.12167Search in Google Scholar

Spigel, B. Harrison, R. (2017). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 1–18.10.1002/sej.1268Search in Google Scholar

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt Rhinehart & Watson.Search in Google Scholar

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484Search in Google Scholar

Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19(6), 453–477.10.1080/08985620701671759Search in Google Scholar

Tanner, A. N. (2018). Changing locus of innovation: a micro-process approach on the dynamics of proximity. European Planning Studies 26(12), 2304–2322.10.1080/09654313.2018.1529143Search in Google Scholar

Van Weele, M. A., Steinz, H. J. Van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2018). Start-up Communities as Communities of Practice: Shining a Light on Geographical Scale and Membership. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 109(2), 173–188.10.1111/tesg.12277Search in Google Scholar

Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932Search in Google Scholar

Yin, RK (2014) Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 5th Edition. Los Angeles, London, New Dehli, Singapore, Washington DC: SageSearch in Google Scholar

Zook, M. (2004). The knowledge brokers: venture capitalists, tacit knowledge and regional development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 621–641.10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00540.xSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-03-27
Accepted: 2019-05-07
Published Online: 2019-11-13
Published in Print: 2019-11-01

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow