Diffusion of student business incubators:an institutional theory perspective on the emergence of a hybrid organizational form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper undertakes a longitudinal examination of the diffusion of a relatively new organizational activity - university student business incubators - by studying the processes through which actors grounded in three different institutional logics interact in the organizational field of higher education. Applying neo-institutional theory, we examine the development of student incubation activities in the field of general state-funded Danish universities. We review institutional pressures from the political sphere that led to the diffusion of student incubation, introducing a three-phase process involving experimentation, demonstration, and integration. Our study shows that universities’ responses changed over the period from initial coercive isomorphism and structural and functional decoupling of incubation from core activities towards a higher degree of integration, although still loosely coupled. The process was facilitated by the institutional logic of entrepreneurial culture that integrated elements of the commercial and classic university logics. We find that the diffusion and adaptation process were mainly influenced by resources available, organizational constituencies mobilized, discretional power, and congruity between competing logics. Our findings have theoretical and empirical implications for the development of entrepreneurial promotion activities associated with pre-existing institutional structures as well as the political/institutional dimensions of entrepreneurship relative to the role of the contemporary university.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".