Following our RQ1 of exploring maturity and themes of innovations in entrepreneurial ecosystems, we first analyzed all the articles published annually as per maturity and research exploration. We present the results from each year group below separately:
Theme that emerged during the year 2003–2015
Conceptual visualization
During this period, the focus was on exploring themes that were categorized under specific clusters (see Fig. 1), “business ecosystem, capability, customer, development, ecosystem service, entrepreneur, Europe, firm, goal, innovation ecosystem, new venture, opportunity, resource, student, success.” These word clusters indicate entrepreneurial symphony, especially capturing nurturing success in the business ecosystem. Further, a cluster containing words like “adoption, case study, culture, ecosystem, emergence, knowledge, phenomenon, small firm, society, strategy, transformation, value” indicates its connection with Cultural Catalysts, unveiling small firm transformation through ecosystem adoption. The third theme under these years contains words like “entrepreneurial innovation, entrepreneurship framework, government, innovation, issue, policy, region, Silicon Valley, university,” indicating its connection with Elevate by Innovation by crafting a robust entrepreneurship framework for regional growth and navigating government policies. The last theme under these years contains words such as “business, case, company, consumer, convergence, enterprises, factor, growth, medium, product, technology” grouping theme under TechConverge Enterprises, which navigates business growth through consumer-centric mediums and product innovation.
Together, these four themes delve into the complex worlds of innovation, company culture, and entrepreneurship. The focus on cultural catalysts and technological convergence offers a comprehensive knowledge of entrepreneurial alterations, geographic expansion strategies, and the complex aspects influencing global business performance, even while the European and regional views offer specialized insights. For example, Sprinkle (2003) drew attention to concurrent policy restrictions on commercial and entrepreneurial freedoms that inhibit bioscience advancement. Teece (2007) explored the globally dispersed sources of invention, innovation, and dynamic manufacturing capabilities to create a self-operative and self-corrective entrepreneurial network based on creative destruction, commercialization, and transformation of product technologies. Le and Tarafdar (2009) underscored the importance of interactive collaboration and value co-creation in the era of commerce and the Web 2.0 version, as took place on Facebook, Google, and Myspace.
Theoretical aspects
During this period, entrepreneurial success became synonymous with innovation research, primarily stemming from university research efforts. This led to creative destruction, fostering the commercialization, speciation, and transformation of existing products and strategies. Companies sought value co-creation, supported by government policies and academic advancements. Teece (2007) emphasized the importance of dynamic capabilities, in which firms deploy tangible assets for business through innovative networks. Governmental R&D played a pivotal role in shaping these networks, aligning research with policies. The collaborative nature of business models, as highlighted by Garnsey and Leong (2008), facilitated speciation, branching, and technological advancement, contributing to “techno-organizational speciation spin-offs” and niche creation for transformative innovations (Kantarelis, 2009). However, this perspective is challenged by evolving policies and practices leading to urbanization, expanding markets, and technological speciation across different geographic areas, negatively impacting rural vitality (Nybakk et al., 2009).
Proposition: University-driven efforts, collaborative business models, and government policies combined to drive the intersection of innovation research and entrepreneurial success, which resulted in commercialization and transformation. In addition, changing policies and practices have affected rural vitality through urbanization, market expansion, and technological evolution.
Theme emerged during the year 2016–2017
Conceptual visualization
The emergence of clusters (see Fig. 2) during the timeframe of 2016–2017 majorly saw research surrounding themes of innovative interactions through entrepreneurial university dynamics community-driven economies (e.g., community, demand, design, economy, entrepreneurial university, government, growth), entrepreneurial evolution by nurturing sustainable innovation and open innovation economy (e.g., entrepreneurship, evolution, innovation, open, innovation), TechHub Nexus by maximizing R&D efficiency, fostering creative development and focusing commercialization capability (e.g., capability, commercialization, creative, economy) and urban prowess through innovative business models by crafting a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem (e.g., dynamic, ecosystem, business model, regional). Many articles address important aspects of contemporary enterprise, innovation, and regional development. These topics highlight the delicate interplay between academics, technology, and policy, offering nuanced viewpoints critical for supporting innovation, sustainable development, and entrepreneurial growth in a variety of situations.
Theme of study during the year 2016–2017.
Theoretical aspects
Most prominent themes, which were accentuated through the creation of academic entrepreneurship for the creation of maker spaces and creative economy which could forward and contribute towards regional innovations through the “University’s Economic Development Mission” that was instrumental in building up the prospects for “transforming economy” leading to “regional development,” which gave rise to “new ventures development” and created platforms for novel entrepreneurship. Herein, the university ecosystem examines individual intermediaries and facilitates “Student Spin-off Industries” (Hayter, 2016). For example, the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States takes up ownership of students’ inventions funded by the government. Consequential, novel themes and new ventures in the entrepreneurial ecosystem emerged (Soundarajan et al., 2016) because of emerging models of entrepreneurial universities for transforming the economy in pursuit of regional development through “University Business Cooperations (UBCs)” (Guerrero et al., 2016) to tackle the disruptor dilemma by showing the entrepreneurs the profitable path providing platforms for the overall development of regional innovation systems.
Proposition: Academic entrepreneurship facilitated by initiatives like maker spaces and the creative economy may foster regional innovation and new ventures driven by the university’s economic development mission and exemplified by entities such as student spin-off industries.
Theme emerged during the years 2018–2019
Conceptual visualization
The course of this timeframe saw themes associated with (see Fig. 3) “startups,” “network,” “innovation policy,” “service innovation,” “social entrepreneurship,” and “academic,” among others. These cluster themes drew on the concepts “Innovation Driven Gazelle Enterprises (IDEs),” “prototype equipment facilities,” “translational research by local universities,” “platformization,” “Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship (KIE),” “KIE Concentration,” “innovative milieus,” “voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers,” and “Silicon Valley.”
Theme of study during the years 2018–2019.
Theoretical aspects
The most prominent of all themes were “startups” and “networks,” fueling regional entrepreneurship and leading to radically innovative products and services (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018). The cross-connection of entrepreneurial factors and networks in academic and industrial circles is key to transmitting knowledge bases (Qian, 2018), leading to the growth of startups. Furthermore, the government’s innovation policies lead to the development of “services innovation” and “social entrepreneurship” through the supportive programs of entrepreneurial development that are further boosted by strong networks created by startups advancement in any regional or national entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, it is still unknown how knowledge networks (Miller et al., 2018) influence entrepreneurship processes through supportive environments fostering innovative startups (Spigel and Harrison, 2018).
Proposition: The symbiotic relationship between startups, knowledge networks, and government innovation policies may be pivotal in driving regional entrepreneurship, particularly in the development of services innovation and social entrepreneurship, yet the specific influence of knowledge networks on entrepreneurial processes within supportive environments remains unclear and requires further exploration.
Theme that emerged during the year 2020
Conceptual visualization
The themes that originated during this timeframe (see Fig. 4) were associated with “academic entrepreneurship,” “social entrepreneurship,” “urban-rural divide,” “disruptive innovation,” and “tourism,” the origination of which was based on tagged-in factors such as “innovation hubs for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EEs),” “informal entrepreneurship,” “frugal innovation,” “utility-maximization,” “business incubators,” “innovation transition,” etc.
Theme of study during the year 2020.
Theoretical aspects
“Academic” and “social” were the most prominent themes that emerged during this timeframe, encompassing “academic entrepreneurship,” “social entrepreneurship,” “urban–rural divide,” and “disruptive innovation.” The theme emphasized that academic and social are the two most basic and crucial benchmarks for any economy to have the presence of entrepreneurial ecosystems. They are the only factors that give rise to social entrepreneurship that use social issues as the basis for developing new entrepreneurial ideas to establish social enterprises. This is not only blurring the urban–rural divide but is also using this divide to determine, locate, and pick new opportunities and turn them into successful social entrepreneurship model firms, giving rise to informal and frugal innovations that are leading to utility maximization in resource-scarce ecosystems. This even helps in attaining sustainable innovation, which is the only way for nations to balance industrial growth and the sustainability of resources. For example, Kim et al. (2020) discussed the role of social entrepreneurship programs in developing sustainable innovation through balanced industrial growth and opined for internal and external connectivity through innovations and sustainable informal entrepreneurship (Igwe et al. 2020).
Proposition:The intertwining of academic and social themes within entrepreneurial ecosystems may serve as a foundational driver for social entrepreneurship, blurring the urban–rural divide and fostering sustainable innovations that balance industrial growth with resource sustainability.
Theme that emerged during the year 2021
Conceptual visualization
During this timeframe (see Fig. 5), the research focused on “policy implication,” “frugal innovation,” “research,” “innovative behavior,” “intermediary,” “open innovation,” “empirical evidence,” “agent,” “community,” and “social entrepreneurship,” driving on concepts such as “digitization,” “digital platform,” “digital entrepreneurial ecosystems,” “COVID-19”, “pandemic” and “women entrepreneurship,” “circular entrepreneurship,” “sociology,” “emergent entrepreneurship,” “phenomenological inquiry,” “nascent,” “knowledge-intensive,” “returnee entrepreneurial firms,” “Entrepreneurial Discovery Theory,” and “artistic place-making,” among others, which were recurrently referred to by authors in their research works. Furthermore, these themes were spawned from the factors and concepts related to “moderate innovation ecosystems,” “digital platform ecosystems,” “innovation leaders,” “culture entrepreneurship,” “interacting predictors,” etc.
Theme of study during the year 2021.
Theoretical aspects
Out of all themes, the most important themes that emerged were policy implication, frugal innovation (Frugal innovations encompass affordable new products, methods, and designs developed for or emerging from the underserved lower segment of the mass market, often referred to as the ‘bottom of the pyramid), and “innovative behavior,” which were heavily drawn from “digital” associated with terms such as “digitization,” “COVID-19”, “pandemic” etc., and “women entrepreneurship,” “women entrepreneurs,” “women economic empowerment,” “job losses,” and “COVID-19 impact”. These themes essentially and visibly emanated from the term COVID-19, which has been the most effective disruption witnessed in several centuries, sending shock waves and necessitating ‘totally out of the box,’ yet basic and indigenous thought processes and helping the creation of innovations outposts (Decreton et al., 2021). The COVID-19 crisis prompted impactful frugal innovations, particularly among jobless women, fostering widespread women’s entrepreneurship amid the digital revolution (Cullen & De Angelis, 2021). Digitalization facilitated startups as effective innovation brokers, connecting ecosystems, and promoting synergies. The “Waste Not” strategy contributed to resource-efficient production, circular entrepreneurship, and social purpose organizations. This global shift towards novel economic empowerment models, including priority action roadmaps for women, emerged in response to the pandemic’s impact, creating innovative approaches and strategies (Cullen & De Angelis, 2021).
Proposition: The unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19 has catalyzed transformative innovations, particularly in frugal entrepreneurship driven by jobless individuals, notably women, harnessing digital revolution and waste reduction strategies, thereby fostering women’s entrepreneurship, circular economies, and social purpose organizations on a global scale.
Theme that emerged during the year 2022
Conceptual visualization
The clusters that were accentuated in this timeframe (see Fig. 6) were: “biomedical entrepreneurship,” “sustainability,” “translational research,” “demand,” “databases,” “social innovator,” etc. among others, which had their origination from themes such as “digital entrepreneurship,” “digital entrepreneurial ecosystems,” “smart cities,” “circular business models,” “incremental innovation,” “Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship,” “social innovations’ systems,” “Isenberg’s Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Model” (international reference guide for collecting and using data on innovation), “Financial Technology (FinTech) Innovation,” “investment advisory sector,” “trans-disciplinary research,” and “cross cutting themes,” which got frequently referred to by authors in their articles.
Theme of study during the year 2022.
Theoretical aspects
This time period saw the emergence of many “incremental innovations” adding to and revitalizing the existing ones in the wake of COVID-19 (Henrekson et al., 2022). To this end, every nation was endeavoring to get hold of resources and diverting them towards translational research, comprising academic entrepreneurial innovations and social innovations (Audretsch et al., 2022), culminating in biomedical research and entrepreneurship. Biomedical entrepreneurship was in its heyday as it was the most important aspect related to the major disruptor COVID-19 at the time. As a result, there was a mushrooming of startups catering to biomedical resources to fulfill the demand that was extant in almost all the markets of the world. In addition, the most prominent entrepreneurial success was witnessed in “digital entrepreneurial enterprises,” which rose quickly due to the widespread digitization of almost all of the world’s economies in the wake of COVID-19. This trend of enterprises surpassed all records of success and they skipped decades in their growth journey.
Proposition: The aftermath of COVID-19 witnessed a global pursuit of resources for translational research encompassing social innovations, fueling a surge in biomedical entrepreneurship and the rapid success of digital enterprises due to widespread digitization surpassing conventional growth timelines.