Advertisement

Expanding Entrepreneurial, Innovative and Sustainable (EIS) Ecosystems: A Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Perspective

  • Romano AudhoeEmail author
  • Neil Thompson
  • Karen Verduijn
Chapter
Part of the Applying Quality of Life Research book series (BEPR)

Abstract

The value of Entrepreneurial, Innovative and Sustainable (EIS) ecosystems has seen increasing recognition from policymakers and researchers alike. Policymakers employing New Public Management (NPM) have come to understand that the intricate links between diverse EIS stakeholders play a vital role in advancing sources of local transformation – entrepreneurship and innovation – to enhance citizen wellbeing (e.g. happiness, trust, safety and satisfaction). A persistent challenge to both academic and policy research, however, is uncovering how and why EIS ecosystem stakeholders do or do not interact to produce positive outcomes. In this chapter, we propose and explain a novel framework for analysing and assessing EIS ecosystems: activity system analysis (ASA). This methodological framework, rooted in cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), assists researchers by guiding analyses towards specific tensions and contradictions between stakeholders that prevent EIS ecosystems from developing. ASA does this by moving the analysis from ambiguous framework and systemic conditions (e.g. cultural, social and material attributes) towards the activities and objectives by stakeholders in specific locales. Additionally, it allows researchers to gain insights in the developmental trajectory of EIS ecosystems and to understand the learning actions that transform them. Ultimately, this chapter provides guidelines for performing activity-oriented research on EIS ecosystems so as to uncover the intricacies of an EIS ecosystem’s functioning. Adopting the ASA approach will enable policymakers to better understand how to improve EIS ecosystems and the quality of life for their citizens.

Keywords

Activity systems EIS ecosystems Entrepreneurship Community Expansive learning cycle 

References

  1. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0902_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76. http://doi.org/DOI. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R., & Miranda, J. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship in US job creation and economic dynamism. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drakopoulou Dodd, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2007). Mumpsimus and the Mything of the individualistic entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal, 25(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607078561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2007.07.003.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1–18). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your City. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1995), 56–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00233.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foot, K. A. (2002). Pursuing an evolving object: A case study in object formation and identification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foot, K. A., & Fi, K. F. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practical theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network. Published in Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foot, K. A., & Groleau, C. (2011). Contradictions, transitions, and materiality in organizing processes: An activity theory perspective. First Monday, 16(6), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations. The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. (2014). The new heretics: Hybrid organizations and the challenges they present to corporate sustainability. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614545345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 161–182.Google Scholar
  23. Hekkert, M. P., & Negro, S. O. (2009). Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: Empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 584–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horwitch, M., & Mulloth, B. (2010). The interlinking of entrepreneurs, grassroots movements, public policy and hubs of innovation: The rise of Cleantech in new York City. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 21(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2010.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). The big idea: How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6). https://doi.org/10.1353/abr.2012.0147.
  27. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 215–239.Google Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(I), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiryushin, P., Mulloth, B., & Iakovleva, T. (2013). Developing cross – border regional innovation systems with clean technology entrepreneurship: The case of Øresund. Internation Journal of Innovation and Regional Development Journal Innovation and Regional Development, 5(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2013.055237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  31. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  33. Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Article Urban Studies Urban Studies Journal Limited, 53(10), 2118–2133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586547.Google Scholar
  34. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. OECD LEED Programme & Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  35. Motoyama, Y., Konczal, J., Bell-masterson, J., & Morelix, A. (2014). Think locally, act locally: Building a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. Kauffman Foundation Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2013.04.001.
  36. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Pitelis, C. (2012). Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: A conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(6), 1359–1388. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Popoviciu, I., & Popoviciu, S. A. (2011). Social entrepreneurship, social enterprise and the principles of a community of practice. Revista de Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala, 33(1), 44–55.Google Scholar
  40. Potter, J., Miranda, G., Cooke, P., Chapple, K., Rehfeld, D., Theyel, G., & Rosenboim, M. (2012). Clean-tech clustering as an engine for local development: The Negev Region, Israel (OECD Local Economic and Employment Working Papers). https://doi.org/10.1787/5k98p4wm6kmv-en. OECD.
  41. Roth, W. M. (2007). Emotion at work: A contribution to third-generation cultural-historical activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030701307705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an “urban” teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(0), n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167.
  45. Spigel, B. (2016). Developing and governing entrepreneurial ecosystems: The structure of entrepreneurial support programs in Edinburgh, Scotland. International Journal of Innovation and Regional, 7(2), 17–19.Google Scholar
  46. Stam, E. (2014). The Dutch entrepreneurial ecosystem. Utrecht: Birch Research Llp.Google Scholar
  47. Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen, & Z. Wang (Eds.), Handbook for entrepreneurship and small business. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Startup Delta. (2015). Startup delta report. Amsterdam. https://wtce.nl/wp-content/uploads/160630-Results-StartupDelta-V5.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2016.
  49. StartupAmsterdam. (2015). Visie en actieprogramma StartupAmsterdam. Amsterdam. https://tweakimg.net/files/upload/StartupAmsterdam%20plan%20PDF%20Totaal%20070115.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2016.
  50. Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(3), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000197135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suresh, J., & Ramraj, R. (2012). Entrepreneurial ecosystem: Case study on the influence of environmental factors on entrepreneurial success. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(16), 95–102.Google Scholar
  52. Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, N. A., Kiefer, K., & York, J. G. (2011). Distinctions not dichotomies: Exploring social, sustainable, and environmental entrepreneurship. In: Social and sustainable entrepreneurship (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth) (pp. 201–229) (Vol. 13). Bingley: Emerald Books.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, N. A., Herrmann, A. M., & Hekkert, M. P. (2015). How sustainable entrepreneurs engage in institutional change: Insights from biomass torrefaction in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van der Horst, D. (2008). Social enterprise and renewable energy: Emerging initiatives and communities of practice. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508610810922686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Stijn, N., & Van Rijnsoever, F. (2014). Climate-KIC scout report -the Boston start-up ecosystem supporting entrepreneurship in a highly academic environment. Utrecht. http://www.startupinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Climate-KIC-Scout-Report-Boston.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2016.
  57. Vogel, P. (2013). Building and assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Hague: OECD LEED Programme.Google Scholar
  58. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship – conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.Google Scholar
  63. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural – Historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods. Springer. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Smaldino, S. (2007). Using activity theory to evaluate and improve K-12 school and university partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 364–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yasuyuki, & Watkins, K. M. M. (2014). Examining the connections within the startup ecosystem: A case study of St. Louis, (September), 1–32.Google Scholar
  68. Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and BusinessVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations