اینکوباسیون دانشگاه منطقه ای: دیدگاه ذینفعان چند سطح  Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective

1. Introduction It is widely recognised that sustainable economic development is dependant on the stimulation of innovation and new firm formation within regions (Mian, 2011; Liargovas, 2013). From the early 1980s, University Incubation models have emerged within the wider University Technology Transfer (UTT) process as effective mechanisms for nurturing and supporting spin-out firms (Allen and Rahman, 1985; Lewis, 2001; Voisey et al., 2006). Since then, such models have emerged globally with the aim of stimulating economic development and growth (Mian, 2011). Within the literature, although the process of incubation varies, it is generally considered to incorporate mentoring and knowledge exchange between various stakeholders to enhance sustainability and growth (Hackett and Dilts, 2008; Wonglimpiyarat, 2010; Ahmad and Ingle, 2011). Consequently, it is an interactive process often involving inter-organisational collaboration between government, universities, industry and end user stakeholders (Garrett-Jones et al., 2005; Fogelberg and Sandén, 2008; Howells et al., 2012). Recent research identifies the need to consider contextual factors when exploring incubation processes in a regional setting (Liargovas, 2013; Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014; Zahra et al., 2014). Although both Phan et al. (2005) and Tamasy (2007) refer to the impact of regional contextual factors on incubation, to date this is an underexplored area lacking a consistent theoretical foundation (Oakey et al., 2012). In addition, Daskalopoulou et al., (2010) suggest there is likely to be variances in university incubation models and performance across regions. This approach contrasts with a universal best practise ethos applicable across all regions and suggests the need to identify and leverage unique and idiosyncratic regional influences on university incubation models. In seeking to address these changes at a regional and local level, a number of studies have suggested that the triple helix model (Academia, Industry and Regional government actors) should be extended to include the users of innovation as a fourth helix and ‘multi focal lens’ (Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014:212). Users are seen as a specific stakeholder grouping with that of society (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009; Afonso et al., 2012), where the level of engagement of such users may vary (Arnkil et al., 2010) and is seen as playing a demand role within the incubation ecosystem and thus giving a commercial focus to the incubation process (Afonso et al., 2012). Moreover, Carayannis and Rakhmatullin (2014) suggest the need to classify stakeholder groupings that interact in a dynamic manner in producing innovative products for end users built upon regional strengths. In seeking to explore University incubation in this context it is thus suggested that stakeholder theory offers a unique perspective to probe the contextual nature of a region and its constituent university incubation models where the emphasis is on contextually grounded approaches as represented by different stakeholder groupings and their voices, tensions and synergies (Asheim and Coenen, 2005; Etzkowitz, et al., 2005; Plewa et al., 2013). However, when considering the role of stakeholders in incubation, there is a need to recognise that stakeholders may vary in accordance with region and university type. In addition, the strategy, culture, skills and knowledge of universities may all impact upon incubation models adopted (Hewitt-Dundas, 2012). Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to use a stakeholder lens to explore the development of University incubation models within unique regional and organisational characteristics and constraints. The paper commences with an overview of university incubation models and their subsequent adoption. Stakeholder theory is then used as the theoretical lens by which to analyse this adoption. The following section then presents the methodological rationale and method; which is subsequently followed by a critical evaluation of case study findings. Finally, the implications for theory and practise are considered.