The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 909–922 | Cite as

An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups

  • Mike Wright
  • Donald S. SiegelEmail author
  • Philippe Mustar


New initiatives in student entrepreneurship programs are moving rapidly beyond traditional classroom teaching to experiential learning, which is associated with improved employment outcomes for students (Gosen and Washbush in Simul Gaming, 35:270–293, 2004). Unfortunately, we lack a framework to understand the ecosystem required to enable our students to launch successful startups. In this article, we develop such a framework. The elements of this 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. We also consider the important issue of funding mechanisms.


Student entrepreneurship Ecosystem Universities 

JEL Classification

L26 M13 


  1. Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. (2013). Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: A contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1628–1654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41, 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backes-Gellner, U., & Moog, P. (2007) Who chooses to become an entrepreneur? The jacks-of-all-trades in social and human capital. Institute for Strategy and Business Economics. University of Zurich, Working Paper No. 76.Google Scholar
  5. Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 217–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., & Garcia, A. R. (2014). Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations? Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergman, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics. doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9700-6.Google Scholar
  9. Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32, 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding entrepreneurship: Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, A., Fraser, S., & Greene, F. (2010). Multiple effects of business plans on new ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning off new ventures: A typology of facilitating services. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estrin, S., & Khavul, S. (2016). Equity crowd funding and the socialization of entrepreneurial finance. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  15. Fini, R., Fu, K., Rasmussen, E., Mathison, M., & Wright, M. (2016a). Determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality in Italy, Norway and the UK. ERC Working Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Fini, R., Meoli, A., Sobrero, M., Ghiselli, S., & Ferrante, F. (2016b). Student entrepreneurship: Demographics, competences and obstacles. Bologna: Consorzio Interuniversitario AlmaLaurea.Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, S., Bhaumik, S., & Wright, M. (2015). What do we know about the relationship between entrepreneurial finance and growth? International Small Business Journal, 33, 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation and Gaming, 35, 270–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after bayh-dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayter, C. S. (2016). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hayter, C. S., Lubynski, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  22. Holstein, J., Starkey, K., & Wright, M. (2016). Strategy and narrative in higher education. Strategic Organization, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  23. Honig, B., & Karlsson, T. (2013). An institutional perspective on business planning activities for nascent entrepreneurs in Sweden and the US. Administrative Sciences, 3, 266–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isenberg, D. (2010). The big idea: How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88, 40–50.Google Scholar
  25. Kenney, M. & Patton, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial geographies: Support networks in three high-Tech industries. Economic Geography, 81, 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kshetri, N. (2015). Success of crowd-based online technology in fundraising: An institutional perspective. Journal of International Management, 21, 100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larson, J., Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2016). Location choices of graduate entrepreneurs. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  28. Lerner, J., & Malmendier, U. (2013). With a little help from my (random) friends: Success and failure in post-business school entrepreneurship. Review of Financial Studies, 26, 2411–2452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management, 26, 78–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Massolution. (2013). 2013CF: The crowdfunding industry report. Los Angeles: Crowdsourcing LLP.Google Scholar
  33. Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mustar, P., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nesta (2016). Pushing boundaries: The 2015 UK alternative finance industry report. London: Nesta. Accessed 14 June 2016.
  37. North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50–51, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phan, P., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pigneur, Y., & Osterwalder, A. (2010). The business model generation. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25, 479–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26, 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs. socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1347–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Webb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., & Sirmon, D. G. (2009). You say illegal, I say legitimate: entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34, 492–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright, M. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: Where next? Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wright, M., Hart, M., & Fu, K. (2015). A nation of angels: Assessing the impact of business angels. UKBAA/CFE/ERC.Google Scholar
  53. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Business schools and academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 560–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zahra, S., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Wright
    • 1
    • 2
  • Donald S. Siegel
    • 3
    Email author
  • Philippe Mustar
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Management Buy-Out ResearchImperial College Business SchoolLondonUK
  2. 2.ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.School of Public AffairsArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  4. 4.MINES ParisTechPSL Research University ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations