Discussion: View Thread

Call for Book Chapters

 

The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) has gained popularity since the publication of the mainstream book "Startup Communities" (Feld, 2012) and Isenberg´s (2010) piece in the Harvard Business Review. Both authors highlight the importance of a supportive community as well as an enabling economic environment for the entrepreneur. As such, these publications embody a changing research focus in the entrepreneurship literature: away from personality-based explanations toward investigations of the entrepreneurial process in its broader social and economic environment (Spigel, 2017). The EE concept has proved particularly popular amongst scholars in entrepreneurship, management, and economic geography also due to its focus on the local and regional environment.

However, the idea that a place's community, its economic and social context matter is not new. To the contrary, social science research has increasingly encompassed the "systems" approach for some time already. Focusing on the multitude of actors, the environment and their dynamic network-like interactions to explain and predict socioeconomic outcomes within and across regions has given rise to concepts such as industrial districts (Marshall, 1920), industrial clusters (Porter, 2000), innovative milieu (Camagni, 1991) and, lately, the concept of (regional) innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992; Asheim et al., 2011). These concepts have proved enduringly popular, perhaps due to their ability to capture and explicate mechanisms usually assumed away in static analyses within the classical economics.

As of today, the innovation systems (IS) and entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) literature have established themselves in their own right. Despite the obvious overlap in the topics covered and approaches taken, it appears that the two frameworks mainly evolve along parallel lines with limited dialog even though the innovation systems approach is considered a predecessor of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) approach (Stam & Spigel, 2016).

In a new edited book we seek to explore the similarities and differences between the IS and EE approaches in their treatment of common research topics. Our broader goals are (1) to advance the discourse by bridging the two research traditions through the lessons one perspective can learn from the other and (2) to expand the frontiers of current knowledge by encouraging research into previously unexplored areas. To this end, we invite extended abstract submissions for empirical, theoretical or review chapters that try to bridge the literature on innovation systems (IS) or entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) within the blocks of topics listed below.

We particularly encourage submissions, which treat these topics within the Global South context, as well as submissions from female researchers.

 

Block I – Bridging the IS and EE perspectives

Despite rising importance of the IS concept, which has been widely applied at local, regional, sectoral and national levels, the literature points to one important missing element within this approach, the individual agency and, as a consequence, the absence of the entrepreneur (Acs, Autio, & Szerb, 2014). The National Innovation Systems (NIS) research is firmly grounded in the Schumpeter Mark II tradition, which emphasizes the role of large corporation for R&D (Freeman & Soete, 1997). However, ever since the early work of Schumpeter (1934) –Schumpeter Mark I – innovation has been intimately linked with entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs are behind the 'gales of creative destruction' that bring change to the markets by creating new combinations. Despite this close relation, "the two literatures, those of NISs and entrepreneurship, have largely developed in parallel, independent of one another, even though the concepts of innovation and entrepreneurship themselves are closely related, and both literatures trace at least some intellectual descent from Schumpeter" (Acs et al., 2014).

Within Section I, we solicit papers that bridge the IS and EE perspectives via:

• theoretical contributions which – by combining the two approaches – advance our current knowledge;
• critical reviews of the literature that explore similarities, differences, limitations and areas of overlap;
• any other types of contributions that fall within this area, e.g. explorations of various topics made explicitly from the two perspectives.

 

Block II – Sustainable development and inclusive growth

For decades, both economic development and environmental protection have been viewed as a zero-sum game of social wealth (Cohen & Winn, 2007). Governments have often failed in their attempts to leverage innovation and entrepreneurship to reduce inequality within the top-bottom approach (George, McGahan, & Prabhu, 2012). Recent research, however, highlights the ability of innovation and entrepreneurship to contribute to social welfare and ecologically sustainable economy from the bottom up (e.g. Dean & McMullen, 2007).

Within Section II, we solicit empirical research which explores - from the IS or EE perspectives

• the ways entrepreneurship and innovation contribute and shape sustainable development and inclusive growth;
• social innovation and social entrepreneurship;
• responsible innovation and responsible entrepreneurship
• possible limitations of the EE or IS perspectives to adequately explain any topics listed above.

 

Block III – The informal economy

Based on empirical observations of urban labor markets in Africa, the term informal economy was born (Portes & Haller, 2010). It is now widely accepted that the informal sector is not only a persistent phenomenon but also a growing one. However, despite the recognition that informal innovations and informal entrepreneurship are a part of economic reality in many developing countries (Arocena & Sutz, 2000), little attention has been paid to these aspects in both the IS and EE literature.

Within the Block III, we solicit empirical contributions that adopt systems approach to the study of:

• the informal sector in general;
• frugal innovation;
• informal entrepreneurship and informal innovations.

Submission, review and publication

Please submit extended chapter abstracts (500-1,000 words) together with a full list of contributors and a tentative title to Alexandra Tsvetkova (tsvetkova.1@osu.edu) no later than Sunday, August 19^th, 2018.  The title, the list of authors, their affiliations and references (if any) are excluded from the word count. Inquiries can be directed to the same email adress before the submission date. 

The editors will screen all submissions for clarity, relevance and expected contribution to the book theme. Selected abstracts will be incorporated into book proposal to be submitted to Edward Elgar Publishers. We have discussed the book plan with the editor and received a preliminary approval. We expect to sign a book contract in October 2018.

We expect to follow this timeline:

Chapter proposal (500 – 1,000 words) submission deadline: August 19^th, 2018

Acceptance notification: September 3^rd, 2018

Chapter submission deadline: January 13^th, 2019

Expected publication: Fall 2019 –Winter 2010.

Once the contract is signed, all details the book publication timeline will be sent to participating authors. Please be aware that the chapters must be original and comply with Edward Elgar's submission guidelines (more information will be provided at the time of chapter acceptance). All chapters will undergo double-blind review processes and will be checked with specialized software for plagiarism.

Please feel free to distribute this call for chapter proposals to other researchers who might be interested. We appreciate your time and are looking forward to our future collaboration.

Warmly,

Alexandra Tsvetkova, Ohio State University, USA

Jana Schmutzler, Universidad del Norte, Colombia

Rhiannon Pugh, Uppsala University, Sweden

 

------------------------------
Jana Schmutzler
Business School, Universidad del Norte
Colombia
------------------------------