OeconomiA

copernicana
Volume 11 Issue 1 March 2020
p-ISSN 2083-1277, e-ISSN 2353-1827
[Link]
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Citation: Kobylińska, U., & Lavios, J. J. (2020). Development of research on the university
entrepreneurship ecosystem: trends and areas of interest of researchers based on a systematic
review of literature. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133. doi: 10.24136/oc.2020.005

Contact to corresponding author: [Link]@[Link]; Bialystok University of Technology,

Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Białystok, Poland

Received: 11.12.2019; Revised: 29.01.2020; Accepted: 15.02.2020; Published online: 26.03.2020

Urszula Kobylińska
Bialystok University of Technology, Poland
[Link]/0000-0001-9435-7841

Juan J. Lavios
Escuela Politécnica Superior. Universidad de Burgos, Spain
[Link]/0000-0002-1418-1151

Development of research on the university entrepreneurship

ecosystem: trends and areas of interest of researchers
based on a systematic review of literature

JEL Classification: L31; M13; O31

Keywords: academic entrepreneurship; university (academic) entrepreneurship ecosystem;

systematic literature review

Abstract

Research background: The concept of the university entrepreneurship ecosystem is nowadays

a part of the current trends in researching the determinants of support for commercialization of
research results. The subject is relatively new, because the first papers in this topic are dated to
2009, and in fact it has only been in the last 3 years that the interest of researchers in this subject
has increased.
Purpose of the article: The purpose of this study is to analyze the state of research on the issue
of the university ecosystem of academic entrepreneurship and to identify the main research trends
related to this topic.
Methods: The article was based on a systematic review of the literature (SLR), which included
the selection of basic literature and selection of publications, mayor researchers, bibliometric
analysis and content analysis.
Findings & Value added: The results of the conducted research indicate that the study of the
university ecosystem of academic entrepreneurship is still a new issue, poorly recognized in
literature, without a solid methodological foundation and which may constitute a current and
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

interesting research area. Our paper adds to existing research in four important ways. We provide
a holistic review of university entrepreneurial ecosystem. We also identify the challenges identi-
fied in this area and suggest how they may be developed. Third, our results are also policy-
relevant. For policy-makers, it is important to know whether academic engagement is driven by
mechanisms existing in academic ecosystem or affected by factors that may not be activated by it.

Introduction

Universities and their immediate surroundings are places that play a key
role for contemporary societies in the field of education and generating the
latest knowledge (Perkmann et al., 2013, p. 423). Over the past decade,
researchers have started to see the university and its surroundings as a spe-
cial ecosystem supporting entrepreneurs in developing their business ideas
(Isenberg, 2011; Hechavaria & Ingram, 2014; Sherwood, 2018). It is about
creating a specific ecosystem of the university, which creates favourable
conditions for cooperation between many entities, i.e. University, business
incubators, technology transfer centres, financial support institutions, etc.
involved in supporting academic entrepreneurship. An ecosystem-based on
high-quality relationships between entities can affect the loyalty of partners
involved in cooperation, their behaviour, willingness to get involved and
help, thus being an important factor conducive to achieving a better result
of cooperation from the point of view of academic entrepreneurship
(Kobylińska, 2019, pp. 17–33). Academic entrepreneurial ecosystems af-
fect the nature and quality of entrepreneurial activity, shape the direction
and potential benefits associated with the identification, creation and im-
plementation of opportunities. Entrepreneurial ecosystems contain multi-
level processes and stakeholders, as well as many contexts (Isenberg,
2010).
Considering the above, the paper intended to systematize the literature,
aiming to clarify which streams of the literature are more important for the
most recent approach to university entrepreneurial ecosystem. With this in
mind, the aim is to identify the main studies dealing with the complex top-
ics, but related to academic entrepreneurial ecosystem. For the purposes of
this study, the following research questions were formulated:

Q1: How widely is the concept of academic entrepreneurial ecosystem

understood nowadays?

Q2: Which streams of the literature are most important in presenting an

overall definition of university entrepreneurship ecosystem?

118
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

Q3: What research methods are used to study the academic entrepreneur-
ship ecosystem?

When analyzing the literature on the subject, it was noticed that there
was no systematic review of the literature on academic ecosystems that
identifies clear concepts in this topic. Most of the available publications
does not integrate a number of factors affecting university entrepreneurship
ecosystem in an integrated way, given the emerging conceptualization of
ecosystems (especially for selected universities), which provides an incom-
plete picture of this phenomenon. We fill these gaps by providing a system-
atic review of the literature on the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem (in
particular from the perspective of mainstream research in this field and the
methods used to study this concept).
The article was prepared as follows. Part 1 is an introduction. Part 2 re-
views the literature on the academic entrepreneurship ecosystem. Part 3
discusses the methodological approach used in this study and part 4 pre-
sents the results of the study. The final parts of the article discuss the re-
sults, contain conclusions and implications for future research.

Literature review

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is an ambiguous term to define, but the fact

is that this concept has been becoming more and more explored by scien-
tists for several years (Stam & Spigel, 2016; Oh et al., 2016, pp. 1–6) and
involves many interactions between organizations (Jacobides et al., 2018;
Leitão et al., 2018). Such ecosystems are attractive because they can bring
about co-evolution and value creation (Dodgson et al., 2014). In practice,
we can see various unique entrepreneurial ecosystems such as Silicon Val-
ley or MIT. The ecosystem consisting of many entities related to education,
research and social networks contributes to growing entrepreneurial activity
(Roberts & Eesley, 2009, p. 7).
Mason and Brown (2014, p. 5) define the entrepreneurship ecosystem as
a “set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors, entrepreneurial organiza-
tions, institutions and processes which formally and informally coalesce to
connect, mediate and govern the performance within the local entrepreneur-
ial environment”. An ecosystem is a result of various mechanisms and ac-
tors, in different contexts and evolves over time. Most recently, Jones et al.,
(2018) outlined the role played by entrepreneurial ecosystems, especially in
emerging contexts that influence entrepreneurial behavior, based on the
contextual factors made apparent by knowledge spillovers. Spigel (2017)
distinguishes three categories of attributes of entrepreneurial ecosystem that

119
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

provide resources and benefits to entrepreneurs: cultural, social and materi-

al. Cultural attributes include specific regional entrepreneurial attitude or
culture (Bosma et al., 2009) and histories of entrepreneurship. Social at-
tributes encompass networks, capital investment, mentors and dealmakers,
and worker talent. Material attributes include universities, support services
and physical facilities, policy and governance and the availability of local
markets.
In recent years, researchers have recognized that the university plays an
important role in building and maintaining the entrepreneurial ecosystem
(Hechevarria & Ingram, 2014). Fetter et al. (2010) introduced the term
University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, or UBEE (Sherwood, 2018,
p. 245).
In the literature of reference, the approach to university entrepreneurship
ecosystem is still recent, but has gained popularity in recent years above all
due to Academic entrepreneurship: creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem
by (Siegel et al., 2014) and How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution by
Isenberg (2010) published in the Harvard Business Review. Hayter (2016),
in the context of academic entrepreneurship, believes that the effectiveness
of academic entrepreneurship ecosystems depends on a series of interac-
tions and interrelationships occurring within this environment, as well as
their ability to provide information and resources essential for the success
of a company (Powell et al., 2009; Whittington et al., 2009). A well-shaped
ecosystem can help change the way of thinking about commercialization of
technology and strengthen academic culture, as well as contribute to the
increase in the competitiveness of academic spin-off companies on global
markets (Hallam et al., 2017, p. 78).

Research methodology

The research method used to assess publications in the area of university

entrepreneurship ecosystem was a systematic literature review (SLR) using
bibliometric analysis techniques.
A systematic review needs to define clear questions, criteria and conclu-
sions that provide new information based on the content examined. The
scope of literature research was as follows: (1) formulation of the research
objectives, (2) the subject, area and keywords of the study were selected;
(3) an analysis of changes in the number of publications in subsequent
years and an analysis of citation from the analyzed subject in the Scopus
and ISI Web of Science databases; (4) key publications in the databases
were identified and the journal IF was assessed; (5) major researchers and

120
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

their countries of origin have been identified; (6) the content of the publica-
tion was analyzed in terms of detailed research areas/research methods.

Step 1

At the first stage, a research plan was drawn up including the research
goals and a set of criteria for including and excluding publications. As the
aim of this study is to identify main streams of literature found to be most
important for presenting a new concept of university (academic) entrepre-
neurial ecosystems, the protocol considers the three research questions
formulated and presented in the introduction.
In choosing the databases to use for gathering documents, the main two
indexed base with greatest acceptance in the area of Management, Business
and Economics was considered. The choice of ISI Web of Science and Sco-
pus were justified on two counts, firstly, because they are a multidiscipli-
nary database, and secondly, because they include all the journals indexed,
with the greatest number of citations in the respective fields of scientific
specialization. Moreover, those database provide an index of citations, giv-
ing information about each publication in terms of documents cited and
documents citing it.

Step 2

This step included searching for definitions of research conditions as

well as selected keywords, and then implementing strategies for identifying
and locating related scientific articles that are part of the predefined forms
in selected databases.
Data for the study were collected from the ISI Web of Science and Sco-
pus databases in the fourth quarter of 2019. In the initial phase of research,
searches were carried out for scientific publications which contained in
their title, abstract or keywords the phrase "entrepreneurship ecosystem"
and then "university entrepreneurship ecosystem". The review included
publications from 2009–2019 and was limited to the field of economic sci-
ences. The total number of documents found for the entry "entrepreneur-
ship ecosystem" in the ISI Web of Science database was 927 and for Sco-
pus 997. After narrowing the search to "university entrepreneurship ecosys-
tem", the number of publications for business, management and economics
decreased to 168 in the WoS database and 224 in Scopus.
It was decided to use the following key terms organised by: subject
[(“university entrepreneurship ecosystem”) OR ("entrepreneurial ecosys-
tem in University") OR ("academic entrepreneurship ecosystem") refined

121
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

by: languages: (English); areas of research: Business OR Management OR

Economics); types of document: (Articles), and period: 2009–2019.

Step 3

In principle, since 2009 initially there is little interest of researchers in

the problems of the university entrepreneurship ecosystem. Chart 1 presents
information on the number of publications for economic sciences (area:
business, economics, management) in the Scopus and ISI WoS databases.
As can be seen in the chart after a period of stagnation in the years 2009–
2015, the number of publications has been steadily increasing, and in the
last two years (2019–2020) there have been relatively the largest number of
them.
In fact, before 2009, there were no publications from the analyzed topic
identified in the ISI WoS database. There is increased interest of research-
ers in university entrepreneurship ecosystem, after 2016. Information on the
number of publications from the analyzed topic is presented in Figure 1. As
can be seen in the graph, after a period of stagnation in the years 2009–
2015, the number of publications was systematically growing, and in the
last years (2016–2019) their number was relatively the highest (over the
past 4 years 70% of all publications on the studied issues have been creat-
ed).

Step 4 and 5

In a further stage of the research, a bibliometric analysis was limited to

the analysis of quotability, taking into account publications issued in the
years 2009–2019 and limiting them only to scientific articles. The largest
number of articles on the subject studied in the Scopus database was pub-
lished in the journals: Journal of Technology Transfer (IF–4.037) (20),
Small Business Economics (IF–3.555) (10), Proceedings of the European
Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation (6), Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development (IF–2.928) (5), Journal of Enterprising Communi-
ties: People and Places in Global Economy (5), Science, Technology and
Society (IF–0.927) (5). The most frequently quoted authors are: Miller K.
(87), Guerrero M. (77), Urbano D. (77). Nine publications of these authors
from 2016 were cited 164 times in total. The most cited articles come from
researchers from countries such as the United States (58), the United King-
dom (19 publications), Spain (14), Italy (13), Germany (11). US scholars
published over 50% of articles in the subject.

122
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

Step 6

In a further stage of the research, a bibliometric analysis was made to

analyze the content of the most cited articles, dealing with the issue of
UEE. After reviewing the abstracts or the full version of the articles, those
that did not directly address issues related to the university entrepreneurial
ecosystem were eliminated. Attention was paid to such aspects as: the area
of research/analysis, the type of the subject of the analysis, applied research
methods. Table 1 gathers the most cited publications on the subject (at least
25 citations in one of the databases).
The most cited publication in the database is an article by Spigel entitled
The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, published in
Journal Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice (Vol. 41, Issue 1, January
2017, pp. 49–72). The article examinee the attributes constituting entrepre-
neurial ecosystems, the relationships between them, and how they influence
the competitiveness of new ventures and became an inspiration to start
research on UEE for many authors. The remaining articles collected defi-
nitely fewer citations. As mentioned earlier, the majority of articles from
the studied issues were created in 2016–2019, therefore the number of cita-
tions of publications, especially from the last period, may still be small.
The review of the content most cited articles shows that they focus on:
− the attributes that shape the university's business ecosystem,
− the characteristics of this ecosystem, its relationships,
− key ecosystem factors affecting the entrepreneurial intentions of the
academic environment,
− the characteristics of the entrepreneurial university and its supporting
networks,
− the impact of the university ecosystem for spinoff development or tech-
nology transfer.
The first theoretical models pointing to components of the university-
based entrepreneurship ecosystem are being created. The variety of issues
in the subject of the ecosystem is very wide and ambiguous.
Research methods used to explore the subject indicate the early stage of
research development in this area. The research methods are dominated by
case study and systematic literature review. The case studies were often
carried out using interviews and document analysis. University ecosystem
analysis was usually studied in single or comparative case studies. Quanti-
tative methods have been used much less frequently. In this connection, we
can see that the qualitative approach prevails when examining university
ecosystem practices. This means, among others that the context of ecosys-

123
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

tem is examined and factors in this context have been the subject of special
attention.
In the last stage of the systematic literature review, the contents of all ar-
ticles identified in the ISI WoS and Scopus databases were analyzed, which
in the abstract, title, keywords have the subject of the university ecosystem
of academic entrepreneurship. After analyzing the content of the articles or
their abstracts, it was noted that only some of the articles directly concern
university entrepreneurship ecosystems subject. A total of 157 articles were
analyzed.
After their in-depth analysis, it can be concluded that the existing UEE
research creates certain research currents regarding:
− a synthesis of the literature on UEE,
− expanding knowledge on the dynamics of academic entrepreneurship
from the perspective of the ecosystem and the relationship between its
elements,
− the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in creating start-ups and their
internationalization,
− conceptualizing the model of the academic ecosystem,
− management in the university ecosystem.

Discussion

As the analysis in this article has shown, research on the academic entre-
preneurship ecosystem is clearly expanding, but is still a fragmentary field.
At the moment, there is no literature review that would focus comprehen-
sively on the academic entrepreneurship ecosystem and provide a general
framework for it conceptualization.
The discussion that takes place in the literature in relation to academic
ecosystems focuses mainly on the basic components, while largely ignoring
the processes for their connection in a sustainable environment with entre-
preneurial vitality (which is highlighted by Malecki, 2017) or eschewing
strategic and systemic conceptualizations of entrepreneurship ecosystems
(Hayter et al., 2018).
The review of the literature contained in this article is intended to signal
the need to deepen empirical research on the main actors and elements
shaping the ecosystem of academic entrepreneurship and the relationships
between them, aimed at long-term cooperation and, as a result, greater ef-
fectiveness in commercializing knowledge. Our review of the most cited
articles found that most of the existing research focuses on the results of
individual ecosystems or universities, which may not always translate into

124
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

a broader context, e.g. inference at the macro level, let alone these combi-
nations in terms of complex interactions.
As noted in review of the literature of Hayter et al. (2018), researchers
have already thoroughly examined the resources of academic entrepreneur-
ship within individual universities and the regions in which they are locat-
ed, compared the programs of entrepreneurship support among scientists,
however these studies are mainly descriptive and do not study interaction
between ecosystem features. The desired research in this topic can combine
two approaches — mapping and interaction within the ecosystem — to
examine how an academic entrepreneur thinks and uses services supporting
knowledge commercialization and additionally, how different ecosystem
features (e.g. relationships in occurring) are evolving towards a particular
result.
The variety of perspectives shown in the literature review in the study of
the academic enterprise ecosystem can also help researchers to contribute
to the emerging research trend. Their research conclusions can provide
useful tips for decision makers and contribute to better ecosystem effects.
Our research concentrated only on studies indexed in the ISI WoS or
Scopus, which could be understood as a limitation of the study. Future
studies can benefit from exploring other techniques for retrieving and sam-
pling articles such as complete scanning of academic publications in a se-
lected set of journals. The article also does not assess the perspective of
effectiveness and efficiency of university models of entrepreneurial ecosys-
tems for the development of entrepreneurial initiatives at universities. Fur-
ther research could broaden the current research perspective and fill these
gaps.

Conclusions

The review of the content of most cited articles shows that they focus on
the attributes that shape the university's entrepreneurship ecosystem, the
characteristics of this ecosystem, its relationships, key ecosystem factors
affecting the entrepreneurial intentions of the academic environment, the
characteristics of the entrepreneurial university and its supporting networks,
the impact of the university ecosystem for spinoff development or technol-
ogy transfer. As can be seen in the literature, one research trend cannot be
found in the analyzed topic. The first theoretical models pointing to com-
ponents of the university-based entrepreneurship ecosystem are being cre-
ated. The variety of issues in the subject of the ecosystem is very wide and
ambiguous. Research methods used to explore the subject indicate the early

125
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

stage of research development in this area. The research methods are domi-
nated by: case study and systematic literature review.
With a view to clarifying the concept of UEE, this study identified the
streams of the literature revealed to be most important for the approach to
UEE through gathering the main studies on the subject. To answer the
research questions raised and examine the current state of this field of re-
search, an SLR was carried out based on a random, convenience and non-
probabilistic sample of 157 academic articles, obtained through a rigorous
data-collection process. The literature was systematized according to the
protocol established, formed of five stages.
The purpose of the systematic review of the literature was to identify
trends and the growing role of researching the academic entrepreneurship
ecosystem in world literature. So far, no latest articles have been found in
the database that would review the achievements of other researchers in the
field of researching the university entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Concerning the first research question, from this SLR it is argued that
the conceptualization of UEE can be carried out in the following terms:
UEE are a set of independent networks and factors, associated with a Uni-
versity and coordinated in such a way to allow extend spin-offs and startups
in the region.
Regarding the second research question, the SLR gives grounding to the
thesis that the main streams of the literature identified are: networks in
university ecosystem, configurations of UEE, spin-offs and startups in eco-
system, University–industry cooperation; relationship in UEE.
Regarding third question, from SLR perspective it is argued that empirical
research of the issues is at the initial stage of development, as evidenced by
the research methods used: case studies or a review of the literature.
A small number of quantitative studies are noted. In addition, research of-
ten has a local context, concerns selected universities and a small research
sample.

References

Berger, E. S. C., & Kuckertz, A. (2016). Female entrepreneurship in startup eco-

systems worldwide. Journal of Business Research, 69(11). doi: 10.1016/
[Link].2016.04.098.
Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer
through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 41(4). doi: 10.1007/s10961-015-9399-6.

126
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

Bosma, N., Schutjens, V., & Stam, E. (2009). Entrepreneurship in European

regions. In R. Baptista & J. Leitao (Eds). Public policies for fostering
entrepreneurship. International studies in entrepreneurship, vol 22. New York:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0249-8_4.
Coenen, L., Gosens, J., & Lu, Y. (2015). The role of transnational dimensions in
emerging economy. Technological innovation systems’ for clean-tech. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 86(1). doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.08.029.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Phillips, N. (2014). The Oxford handbook of innovation
management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199
694945.001.0001.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities:
emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business
Economics, 47. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9755-4.
Hallam, C., Novick, D., Gilbert, D. J., Frankwick, G. L., Wenker, O., & Zanella,
G.. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial ecosystem: the
UT transform project. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 23(1).
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing
academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the
literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4). doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-
9756-3.
Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of
knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem.
Small Business Economics, 47. doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3.
Hechavaria, D. M., & Ingram, A. ( 2014). A review of the entrepreneurial ecosys-
tem and the entrepreneurial society in the US: an exploration with the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Dataset. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship,
26(1). doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3.
Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 88(6).
Isenberg, D. J. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new para-
digm for economic policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurships. The
Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project. Babson Park: MA: Babson Col-
lege.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosys-
tems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8). doi: 10.1002/smj.2904.
Jones, P., Klapper, R., Ratten, V., & Fayolle, A. (2018). Emerging themes in en-
trepreneurial behaviours, identities and contexts. International Journal of En-
trepreneurship and Innovations, 19(4). doi: 10.1177/1465750318772811.
Kobylińska, U. (2019). Ecosystem and relationship within the support of academic
entrepreneurship. In Networks, stakeholders and entrepreneurial ecosysystems
in current polish economy. Gdansk: Gdansk University of Technology.
Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a proof of concept center in a university
ecosystem: an exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5). doi:
10.1007/s10961-012-9246-y.

127
 Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117–133

Malecki, E. J. (2017). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geogra-

phy Compass, 12(3). doi: 10.1111/gec3.12359.
Oh, D., Philips F., Park, S., & Lee E. (2016). Innovation ecosystem: a critical ex-
amination. Technoinnovation, 54. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.02.004.
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., Mckelvey, M., & Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este,P.,
Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Krabel, S.,
Llerena,P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engage-
ment and commercialization: a review of the literature on university-industry
relations. Research Policy, 42. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2088253.
Powell, W., Packalen, K., & Whittington, K. (2009). Organizational and institu-
tional genesis: the emergence of high-tech clusters in the life sciences. In J.
Padgett & W. Powell (Eds.). The emergence of organizations and markets.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Robert, E., & Eesley, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial impact: the role of MIT. Founda-
tions and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 7. doi: 0.1561/0300000030.
Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2010). Venture capital as a catalyst to commercializa-
tion. Research Policy, (39)10. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1533787.
Sherwood, A. (2018). University and the entrepreneurship ecosystem. In S.
Globerman & J. Clemens (Eds.). Demographics and entrepreneurship: mitigat-
ing the effects of an aging population. Fraser Institute.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. En-
trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41. doi: 10.1111/etap.12167.
Stam, F. C., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. Utrecht School of
Economics Working Papers, 16-13.
Whittington, K., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2009). Networks, propinquity and
innovation in knowledge- intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarter-
ly, 54. doi 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.90.
Wright, M., Siegel D.S., Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student
start-ups. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4). doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-
9558-z.

Acknowledgements

The article was created as part of the research work of the Chair of Management,
Economics and Finance (Faculty of Engineering Management/Bialystok Univeristy
of Technology)

128
Annex

Table 1. Areas of research/research methods used in the most cited articles from the Scopus / ISI WoS database with the title,
keyword, summary “university entrepreneurial ecosystem”

The number of The number

The title of the citations in the of citations in
Author/Authors Main areas of research
publication/ journal Scopus the WoS
database database
Spigel, B. The Relational 234 194 Aim: The article examinee the attributes constituting entrepreneurial
Organization of ecosystems, the relationships between them, and how they influence the
Entrepreneurial competitiveness of new ventures.
Ecosystems, Method: case studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Waterloo, Ontario
Entrepreneurship: and Calgary, Alberta.
Theory and Practice, Findings: The article argues that successful ecosystems are not defined by
2017, Vol. 41, Issue 1, high rates of entrepreneurship but rather how the interaction between these
pp. 49-72. attributes creates a supportive regional environment that increases the
competitiveness of new ventures.
Samila S., Venture capital as a 81 66 Aim: analysis of the relationship between the public funding of academic
Sorenson O. catalyst to research and venture capital in fostering innovation and the creation of new
commercialization, firms.
Research Policy, 2010, Method: panel data on metropolitan areas in the United States, from 1993 to
Vol. 39, Issue 10, pp. 2002.
1348-1360. Findings: Consistent with perspectives that emphasize the importance of an
innovation ecosystem, authors findings point to a strong interaction between
private financial intermediation and public research funding in promoting
entrepreneurship and innovation.
Table 1. Continued

The number of The number

The title of the citations in the of citations in
Author/Authors Main areas of research
publication/ journal Scopus the WoS
database database
Guerrero M., Entrepreneurial 56 49 Aim: to analyze the role of entrepreneurial universities as major drivers of
Urbano D., universities: emerging entrepreneurial innovation and activities
Fayolle A. models in the new social Method: an overview by outlining an overarching framework. This allows the
and economic landscape, authors to highlight the contributions made in special issue within the
Small Business framework.
Economics, 2016, Vol. Findings: authors concluded by outlining an agenda for future research and
47, Issue: 3, pp. 551- discuss implications for university managers, policymakers, and other
563. academic agents involved in the development of entrepreneurial/innovation
ecosystems.
Boh, W.F., De- University technology 52 43 Aim: understanding of the technology commercialization process in
Haan, U., Strom, transfer through university spinoffs, focusing in particular on student involvement in the early
R. entrepreneurship: faculty phases of the spinoff development process and on the impact of the larger
and students in spinoffs, university ecosystem.
Journal of Technology Method: detailed case studies
Transfer, 2016, Vol. 41, Findings: larger university ecosystem, beyond the university technology
Issue 4, pp. 661-669. transfer office and the university’s commercialization policies, are also
considered, including an examination of programs and practices that may
influence this process. the authors discuss of guidelines for technology
transfer and spinoff development at universities, based on the findings of
research.
Hayter C. A trajectory of early- 51 38 Aim: examining the composition, contributions, and evolution of social
stage spinoff success: networks among faculty and graduate student entrepreneurs and the role of
the role of knowledge knowledge intermediaries therein.
intermediaries within an Method: detailed case studies
entrepreneurial Findings: the results show that the contributions of universities depend on the
university ecosystem, existence and interrelationship of loosely coordinated, heterogeneous
Small Business knowledge intermediaries guided by a strong collective ethos to encourage
Economics, Vol. 47, and support academic entrepreneurship.
Issue: 3, pp. 633-656.
Table 1. Continued

The number of The number

The title of the citations in the of citations in
Author/Authors Main areas of research
publication/ journal Scopus the WoS
database database
Miller K., A systematic literature 35 21 Aim: the paper reviews Mode 2 University Technology Transfer (UTT)
McAdams R., review of university from a quadruple helix perspective to identify key themes to develop a
McAdams M. technology transfer from research agenda which reflects progression from a triple into a quadruple
a quadruple helix helix ecosystem.
perspective: toward a Method: SLR review
research agenda , R & D Finding: research exploring the challenges of quadruple helix models is
Management, 2018, Vol. still in its infancy with existing research predominantly at the macro level
48, Issue: 1, pp. 7-24. reflecting a need for more longitudinal and case-based research at micro
levels to fully understand its complexity.
Wright, M., An emerging ecosystem 45 28 Aim: to develop a framework to understand the ecosystem required to
Siegel, D. S., for student start-ups, enable our students to launch successful startups.
Mustar, P. Journal of Technology Method: theoretical analysis
Transfer, Vol. 42, Issue: Finding: authors developed the ecosystem framework. The elements of this
4, pp. 909-922. framework include university mechanisms to facilitate student
entrepreneurship, along with a continuum of involvement from pre-
accelerators through to accelerators; the involvement of a variety of
entrepreneurs, support actors and investors; the particular nature of the
university environment and the external context; and their evolution over
time.
Hayter C.S., Conceptualizing 25 12 Aim: review the extant literature to understand how academic
Nelson A.J., academic entrepreneurship is conceptualized and the extent to which it adopts an
Zayed S., entrepreneurship ecosystem approach.
O’Connor A.C. ecosystems: a review, Method: inductively reviewing the extant literature since the year 2000 to
analysis and extension understand to what extent it illuminates academic entrepreneurship
of the literature, Journal ecosystem elements and their interconnectivity.
of Technology Transfer, Findings: the authors find that scholars have largely focused on individual
Vol. 43, Issue 4, 2018, ecosystem elements and characteristics, eschewing strategic and systemic
pp. 1039-1082 conceptualizations of entrepreneurship ecosystems. As a result, the authors
Table 1. Continued

The number of The number

The title of the citations in the of citations in
Author/Authors Main areas of research
publication/ journal Scopus the WoS
database database
argue that the ecosystem perspective has not been fully leveraged to
influence policy decisions.
Berger E., S.C., Female entrepreneurship 29 18 Aim: paper seeks to link the two research streams of female
Kuckertz A., in startup ecosystems entrepreneurship and the characteristics of start-up ecosystems theoretically
worldwide, Journal of supporting each stream.
Business Research, Vol. Method: study uses qualitative comparative analysis to explore the
69, Issue: 11, pp. 5163- combinations of ecosystem characteristics explaining a high proportion of
5168 female founders in the 20 most successful start-up ecosystems worldwide.
Findings: The results suggest two different configurations explaining a
high proportion of female founders and reveal which issues require
attention on a metropolitan level and which issues might require national
policymakers to become involved.
Maja C., Claro J. The role of a Proof of 25 22 Aim: the paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of if and how
Concept Center in a PoCCs can positively impact different university ecosystems, through an
university ecosystem: exploratory case study of the role for a PoCC in the ecosystem of
An exploratory study, University of Coimbra
Journal of Technology Method: a focused literature review
Transfer, 2013, Vol. 38, Findings: study suggests that there is, in fact, a possible role for a Proof of
Issue: 5, pp. 641-650 Concept Center in the regional ecosystem of the University of Coimbra,
with a potentially very relevant impact in the technology commercialization
process, through networking outside academia and research environments,
funding of Proof of Concept activities, and technology entrepreneurship
education for the development of entrepreneurial skills for researchers.

Source: own study based on ISI WoS and Scopus databases. Date of search (02-01-2020).
Figure 1. Total number of publications for "university entrepreneurship
ecosystem" in the SCOPUS and WoS database

60

50 51
46
42
40
37
35 34
30
24
20

10 10
89 8
5 6
4
1 2 2
0 01
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Scopus WoS
 © 2020. This work is published under
[Link]
“License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and
Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with
the terms of the License.