Unternehmensgründungen. Wie verschiedene Formate physischer Kopräsenz in Seed- Accelerator-Programmen für die Produktion unternehmerischen Wissens kombiniert werden

Autor/innen

  • Andreas Kuebart Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung, Flakenstraße 29-31Erkner, Deutschland
  • Oliver Ibert Leibniz-Institut für Raumbezogene Sozialforschung, Flakenstraße 29-31Erkner, Deutschland Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-SenftenbergCottbus, Deutschland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0047

Schlagwörter:

Temporary co-presence, relational distance, entrepreneurship, accelerator

Abstract

This paper explores different functions of co-presence for collaborative knowledge creation in the context of seed accelerator programs. Seed accelerators offer programs of three to six months to enhance the growth of early-stage start-ups through various means of training and organizational development. In this paper, seed accelerator programs are analysed as orchestrated sequences of different types of physical co-presence. By drawing on qualitative case study data, the paper identifies eight different ways in which physical co-presence is used during seed accelerator programs. Through these eight types of co-presence, the analysis reveals that physical co-presence unfolds unique social dynamics that are utilized in a carefully designed combination of presence and absence. It is shown that physical co-presence is a means to enact relational distance and to bridge this distance for the benefit of the entrepreneurial process. Therefore, this paper adds a new perspective on how co-presence is used to facilitate the generation of value through collaborative knowledge creation.

Downloads

Download-Daten sind nocht nicht verfügbar.

Literaturhinweise

Amin, A.; Cohendet, P. (2004): Architectures of knowledge. Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford. doi: 10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199253326.001.0001

Bathelt, H.; Gibson, R. (2015): Learning in ‘Organized Anarchies’: The Nature of Technological Search Processes at Trade Fairs. In: Regional Studies 49, 6, 985-1002. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2013.783691

Bathelt, H.; Henn, S. (2014): The Geographies of Knowledge Transfers over Distance: Toward a Typology. In: Environment and Planning A 46, 6, 1403-1424. doi: 10.1068/a46115

Bathelt, H.; Malmberg, A.; Maskell, P. (2004): Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. In: Progress in Human Geography 28, 1, 31-56. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa

Battistella, C.; De Toni, A.F.; Pessot, E. (2017): Open accelerators for start-ups success: a case study. In: European Journal of Innovation Management 20, 1, 80-111. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-10-2015-0113

Bliemel, M.; Flores, R.; de Klerk, S.; Morgan, M.P. (2019): Accelerators as start-up infrastructure for entrepreneurial clusters. In: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 31, 1-2, 133-149. doi:10.1080/08985626.2018.1537152

Boden, D.; Molotch, H.L. (1994): The Compulsion of Proximity. In: Friedland, R.; Boden, D. (eds.): NowHere: Space, Time, and Modernity. Berkeley, 257-286.

Boschma, R. (2005): Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. In: Regional Studies 39, 1, 61-74. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320887

Brown, R.; Mason, C. (2017): Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In: Small Business Economics 49, 1, 11-30. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7

Cope, J. (2005): Toward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurship. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29, 4, 373-397. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x

Dempwolf, C.S.; Auer, J.; D’Ippolito, M. (2014): Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics Among Startup Assistance Organizations. Washington DC.

Dowling, R.; Lloyd, K.; Suchet-Pearson, S. (2016): Qualitative methods 1: Enriching the interview. In: Progress in Human Geography 40, 5, 679-686. doi: 10.1177/0309132515596880

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, 1-20.

Goffman, E. (1963): Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York.

Goswami, K.; Mitchell, J.R.; Bhagavatula, S. (2018): Accelerator Expertise: Understanding the Intermediary Role of Accelerators in the Development of the Bangalore Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. In: Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12, 1, 117-150. doi: 10.1002/sej.1281

Grabher, G.; Ibert, O. (2014): Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. In: Journal of Economic Geography 14, 1, 97-123. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbt014

Grabher, G.; Melchior, A.; Schiemer, B.; Schüßler, E.; Sydow, J. (2018): From being there to being aware: Confronting geographical and sociological imaginations of copresence. In: Environment and Planning A 50, 1, 245-255. doi: 10.1177/0308518X17743507

Granovetter, M.S. (1973): The Strength of Weak Ties. In: American Journal of Sociology 78, 6, 1360-1380.

Growe, A. (2018): Buzz at workplaces in knowledge-intensive service production: Spatial settings of temporary spatial proximity. In: European Urban and Regional Studies. doi: 10.1177/0969776418784999

Growe, A. (2019): Developing trust in face-to-face interaction in knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS). In: Regional Studies 53, 5, 720-730. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1473567

Hausberg, J.P.; Korreck, S. (2018): Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review. In: The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-018-9651-y.

Henn, S.; Bathelt, H. (2015): Knowledge generation and field reproduction in temporary clusters and the role of business conferences. In: Geoforum 58, 104-113. doi: 10.1016/j. geoforum.2014.10.015

Herbert, S. (2010): A Taut Rubber Band: Theory and Empirics in Qualitative Geographic Research. In: DeLyser, D.; Herbert, S.; Aitken, S.; Crang, M.; McDowell, L. (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography, London, 69-81.

Hochberg, Y.V. (2016): Accelerating Entrepreneurs and Ecosystems: The Seed Accelerator Model. In: Lerner, J.; Stern, S. (eds.): Innovation Policy and the Economy. Chicago, 25-51.

Hoegl, M.; Proserpio, L. (2004): Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. In: Research Policy 33, 8, 1153-1165. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.06.005

Ibert, O. (2010): Relational Distance: Sociocultural and Time-Spatial Tensions in Innovation Practices. In: Environment and Planning A 42, 1, 187-204. doi: 10.1068/a4247

Ibert, O.; Hautala, J.; Jauhiainen, J.S. (2015): From cluster to process: New economic geographic perspectives on practices of knowledge creation. In: Geoforum 65, 323-327. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.06.023

Ibert, O.; Müller, F.C. (2015): Network dynamics in constellations of cultural differences: Relational distance in innovation processes in legal services and biotechnology. In: Research Policy 44, 1, 181-194. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.07.016

Ihrig, M.; Zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D.; O’Gorman, C. (2006): The knowledge-based approach to entrepreneurship: linking the entrepreneurial process to the dynamic evolution of knowledge. In: International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies 1, 1/2, 38-58. doi: 10.1504/IJKMS.2006.008844

Knoben, J.; Oerlemans, L.A.G. (2006): Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. In: International Journal of Management Reviews 8, 2, 71-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121.x

Langley, A. (1999): Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. In: The Academy of Management Review 24, 4, 691-710. doi: 10.2307/259349

Lundin, R.A.; Söderholm, A. (1995): A theory of the temporary organization. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 4, 437-455. doi: 10.1016/0956-5221(95)00036-U

Malmberg, A.; Maskell, P. (2002): The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. In: Environment and Planning A 34, 3, 429-449. doi: 10.1068/a3457

Maskell, P. (2014): Accessing remote knowledge. The roles of trade fairs, pipelines, crowdsourcing and listening posts. In: Journal of Economic Geography 14, 5, 883-902. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbu002

Maskell, P.; Bathelt, H.; Malmberg, A. (2006): Building Global Knowledge Pipelines: The Role of Temporary Clusters. In: European Planning Studies 14, 8, 997-1013. doi: 10.1080/09654310600852332

Mattes, J. (2012): Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases. Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors. In: Regional Studies 46, 8, 1085-1099. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2011.552493

Minniti, M.; Bygrave, W. (2001): A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning. In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 25, 3, 5-16. doi: 10.1177/104225870102500301

Nooteboom, B. (2000): Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford.

Obstfeld, D. (2018): Getting New Things Done. Networks, Brokerage, and the Assembly of Innovative Action. Stanford.

Page, S. (2008): The Difference. How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton.

Panitz, R.; Glückler, J. (2017): Rewiring global networks at local events: Congresses in the stock photo trade. In: Global Networks 17, 1, 147-168. doi: 10.1111/glob.12134

Pauwels, C.; Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; van Hove, J. (2016): Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. In: Technovation 50-51, 13-24. doi: 10.1016/j. technovation.2015.09.003

Polanyi, M. (1967): The Tacit Dimension. New York.

Power, D.; Jansson, J. (2008): Cyclical Clusters in Global Circuits: Overlapping Spaces in Furniture Trade Fairs. In: Economic Geography 84, 4, 423-448. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.00003.x

Rutten, R. (2017): Beyond proximities: The socio-spatial dynamics of knowledge creation. In: Progress in Human Geography 41, 2, 159-177. doi: 10.1177/0309132516629003

Simmel, G. (1903): Soziologie des Raumes. In: Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 27, 1, 27-71.

Spradley, J. (1979): The Ethnographic Interview. New York.

Stein, A. (2014): The significance of distance in innovation biographies. The case of law firms. In: Growth and Change 45, 3, 430-449. doi: 10.1111/grow.12053

Steyaert, C. (2007): ‘Entrepreneuring’ as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. In: Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 19, 6, 453-477. doi: 10.1080/08985620701671759

Storper, M.; Venables, A.J. (2004): Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. In: Journal of Economic Geography 4, 4, 351-370. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027

Tempest, S.; Starkey, K. (2004): The Effects of Liminality on Individual and Organizational Learning. In: Organization Studies 25, 4, 507-527. doi: 10.1177/0170840604040674

Uzzi, B. (1996): The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations. In: American Sociological Review 61, 4, 674-698. doi: 10.2307/2096399

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. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 109, 2, 173-188. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12277

Vedres, B.; Stark, D. (2010): Structural Folds: Generative Disruption in Overlapping Groups. In: American Journal of Sociology 115, 4, 1150-1190. doi: 10.1086/649497

Wilson, J.M.; Boyer O’Leary, M.; Metiu, A.; Jett, Q.R. (2008): Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-But-Close. In: Organization Studies 29, 7, 979-1002. doi: 10.1177/0170840607083105

Yang, S.; Kher, R.; Lyons, T.S. (2018): Where do accelerators fit in the venture creation pipeline? Different values brought by different types of accelerators. In: Entrepreneurship Research Journal 8, 4, 1-13. doi: 10.1515/erj-2017-0140

Yin, R.K. (2014): Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Los Angeles.

Downloads

Veröffentlicht

2020-02-28

Ausgabe

Bd. 78 Nr. 1 (2020): TEMPORÄRE RÄUMLICHE NÄHE – AKTEURE, ORTE UND INTERAKTIONEN

Rubrik

Forschungsbeitrag

Lizenz

Copyright (c) 2022 Andreas Kuebart, Oliver Ibert

Creative-Commons-Lizenz

Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 International.

Artikel in Raumforschung und Raumordnung - Spatial Research and Planing werden unter einer Creative Commons Lizenz  veröffentlicht. Seit Jahrgang 79, Ausgabe 2, erfolgt die Veröffentlichung im Lizenzmodell  CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). Von Jahrgang 77 Ausgabe 1 bis Jahrgang 79 Ausgabe 1 wurden alle Artikel unter einer CC BY-SA-Lizenz veröffentlicht. Frühere Jahrgänge wurden von oekom 2022 unter the Lizenz CC BY 4.0 wiederveröffentlicht.

Zitierweise

1.
Kuebart A, Ibert O. Unternehmensgründungen. Wie verschiedene Formate physischer Kopräsenz in Seed- Accelerator-Programmen für die Produktion unternehmerischen Wissens kombiniert werden. RuR [Internet]. 28. Februar 2020 [zitiert 14. September 2026];78(1):35-51. Verfügbar unter: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/287

Teilen

Am häufigsten gelesenen Artikel dieser/dieses Autor/in