University Leadership and Contextualised Strategies: A Model for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystems in Emerging Regions

Abstract

Universities play a crucial role in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems, particularly in emerging regions where economic development depends on effective knowledge transfer and strategic leadership. This study examines the role of university leadership in building innovation ecosystems through a contextualised approach that integrates universities, businesses and the State. Using a qualitative grounded theory methodology, we conducted in-depth interviews with six university executives, six business leaders and two government officials (one local and one national). Additionally, a policy document analysis was performed to assess the alignment between academia, industry and government in fostering innovation in the Magdalena region. Findings reveal that while universities are increasingly promoting entrepreneurship, a lack of coordination with government and industry hinders the formation of a robust innovation ecosystem. Businesses report limited awareness of government support programmes, and policymakers have not established effective mechanisms to facilitate collaboration. Regulatory barriers and communication gaps further restrict the implementation of innovation policies. This study proposes a contextualised strategic model for university leadership that strengthens the Triple Helix framework by emphasising the need for greater alignment between academia, industry and government. The model provides practical strategies for improving collaboration, enhancing policy dissemination and fostering financial support mechanisms for entrepreneurship. By addressing these structural gaps, universities in emerging regions can play a more proactive role in driving economic growth and innovation-led development.

Keywords

University leadership higher education and innovation innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems Triple Helix Model strategic policy for innovation regional innovation strategies

Introduction

Universities have become central actors in the configuration of innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems, particularly in emerging economies where structural transformation depends on knowledge generation, institutional coordination and strategic leadership (Castells, 2002; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; OECD, 2010). The evolution of the university mission—from primarily teaching institutions to entrepreneurial and regionally engaged actors—has been widely documented (Arraut, 2011; Beraza & Rodríguez, 2007; Etzkowitz, 1998). In this expanded role, universities are expected to articulate productive sectors, public policy frameworks and scientific capabilities in ways that stimulate sustainable development (Acs et al., 2017; Audretsch et al., 2007; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Kuhlmann & Rip, 2020; Mason & Brown, 2014; Neck et al., 2004; Saltos Briones et al., 2018; Stam & Spigel, 2016).

In regions characterised by high socio-economic inequality, weak competitiveness structures, limited State capacity and fragmented institutional relationships, ecosystem coordination often remains fragile (Cheah & Ho, 2019; Heaton et al., 2019; Kabbaj et al., 2016; Lombana & Rozas, 2009; Ramírez & García, 2010; Rouschop et al., 2015; Spilling, 1996; Zeng et al., 2010). Under these conditions, innovation does not fail because of the absence of actors but because mechanisms of alignment, trust-building and long-term strategic articulation remain underdeveloped. Ecosystem models developed in institutionally mature contexts often underestimate these coordination gaps when applied to emerging regions.

The Department of Magdalena in the Colombian Caribbean reflects these tensions. With a poverty rate of 47.6% (DANE, 2024) and an economy concentrated in agriculture and tourism, the region remains only partially integrated into the knowledge economy (Consejo Privado de Competitividad, 2024; Meisel-Roca & Ricciulli-Marin, 2018). Although innovation-led growth is emphasised, interactions among universities, businesses and government remain fragmented. Entrepreneurial ecosystems require not only the presence of actors but also relational density and coordination aligned with local capacities and socio-environmental realities (González & Katonáné, 2018; Max-Neef et al., 1986). Initiatives often emerge through isolated efforts instead of sustained governance structures capable of consolidating a regional innovation ecosystem (Franco-Leal et al., 2020; Mirvis & Googins, 2018).

Within this context, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) face a strategic inflection point. Research on entrepreneurial universities suggests that HEIs must move beyond supplying human capital and assume a proactive role in shaping territorial transformation through sustained collaboration among academia, industry and government (Drucker, 2009; Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020; Hayter, 2016; Huang-Saad et al., 2018; Lamine et al., 2018; Schumpeter, 1934). Studies in emerging contexts further emphasise the importance of local partnerships and territorially grounded innovation strategies (Bezerra et al., 2017; Chepurenko et al., 2019; Mukesh & Rajasekharan Pillai, 2020).

Despite these advances, prevailing ecosystem frameworks—such as the Sábato Triangle and the Triple and Quintuple Helix models—often assume levels of institutional cohesion and policy stability that are not always present in emerging territories (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1996; Sábato & Botana, 1968). While these models provide valuable analytical foundations, they offer limited guidance on how coordination emerges under fragmented governance, limited trust and resource constraints. As Ramírez and García (2010) argue in the Latin American context, university–industry–State alliances require deliberate strategic articulation mechanisms rather than spontaneous collaboration. Against this background, this study addresses the following research question:

How can universities strategically lead the development of innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems in emerging regions characterised by fragmented institutional coordination?

To answer this question, the study adopts a qualitative grounded theory approach, analysing the perspectives of university executives, business leaders and government officials in the Magdalena region. Based on the empirical findings, it proposes the Bridge Strategy Model, a contextual framework that situates university leadership at the centre of relational governance processes. Rather than positioning universities merely as knowledge providers, the model conceptualises them as strategic articulators capable of fostering alignment, strengthening trust among actors and promoting territorially embedded innovation strategies.

The contribution of this research is twofold. Theoretically, it extends ecosystem literature by highlighting relational coordination and strategic alignment as mediating mechanisms in low-capacity institutional environments. Practically, it provides context-sensitive guidelines for strengthening collaboration among universities, businesses, government actors and civil society in emerging regions, responding to calls for territorially grounded innovation strategies that integrate economic development with social inclusion and sustainability (Baskaran et al., 2019; Peer & Stoeglehner, 2013; Villa-Enciso et al., 2023).

Education for Innovation and Entrepreneurship

In emerging economies, HEIs are not merely knowledge producers but institutional platforms where innovation capabilities, civic agency and regional transformation intersect (Audretsch & Belitski, 2022; Belitski et al., 2019; Kivimaa et al., 2017; Martin, 2010; Schaeffer et al., 2018; Secundo et al., 2020; Shil et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2015). However, in fragmented territories, the educational function alone is insufficient to activate sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Entrepreneurship education has evolved from skill-based training towards ecosystem-oriented frameworks integrating experiential learning, industry engagement and policy alignment (Bazan et al., 2019; Bergmanna et al., 2018; Centobelli et al., 2019; Drucker, 2009; Guerrero et al., 2006, 2016, 2020; Ierapetritis, 2019; Igual et al., 2020; Isenberg, 2010, 2011; Oftedal et al., 2018). More recent contributions emphasise that effective entrepreneurial education requires systemic integration with regional actors and institutional structures (Chohra, 2019; Huang-Saad et al., 2017; Juvonen & Kurvinen, 2018; Mason et al., 2020; Shekhar & Bodnar, 2020; Suryanto, 2019).

A territorial approach to entrepreneurship education demands structured collaboration among universities, industry, government and increasingly, citizens (Birch et al., 2017; Link & Sarala, 2019; Meoli et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2018; Pano & Gjika, 2020; Portuguez-Castro et al., 2019; Thomsen et al., 2018; Wadee & Padayachee, 2017). In regions characterised by institutional fragility and socio-economic inequality, this integration cannot be assumed—it must be strategically constructed (Boh et al., 2016; Fuster et al., 2019).

Recent literature on citizen entrepreneurship recognises citizens as co-creators of innovation rather than passive beneficiaries. Citizen entrepreneurship conceptualises innovation as a public and social good emerging from collective agency and community-driven problem-solving (Mitra et al., 2020; Schikarski, 2024; Schneider, 2024; Wollschläger, 2024). This perspective aligns with the view that knowledge and innovation possess public-good characteristics and require institutional mechanisms to translate them into societal value (Hogenschurz, 2021).

Entrepreneurship education in emerging territories must move beyond curricular reform and foster relational infrastructures connecting academic capabilities with local problem-solving capacities. Universities thus operate as mediating arenas where knowledge, institutional actors and citizen initiatives converge to generate territorially embedded innovation (McKelvey & Zaring, 2017).

Transformational and Strategic Leadership in HEIs

Leadership constitutes the enabling mechanism that translates educational capacity into ecosystem coordination. Classical strategic management literature (Keller, 1983; Miles & Snow, 1978; Porter, 1996; Sporn, 1996) and transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1999; Garbanzo & Orozco, 2010) emphasise vision alignment, organisational change and institutional adaptation. However, in emerging economies, leadership must operate under constraints: regulatory inefficiencies, weak cross-sector trust, fragmented governance and limited financial resources.

In such contexts, leadership must construct coordination mechanisms. Romero (2020) highlights that context-sensitive governance and adaptive institutional strategies are essential for universities operating in low-capacity environments.

Recent discussions on university impact metrics stress that HEI performance should be assessed not only by research output but also by collaborative engagement, regional spillovers and societal value creation (Alexiou & Saridakis, 2025). This reinforces the need to conceptualise leadership as a mediating structure through which HEIs address resource constraints, fragmented governance and limited cross-sector collaboration while facilitating territorial engagement and ecosystem coordination.

In line with evidential pluralism, causal understanding in complex social systems requires identifying both correlations and mechanisms (Saridakis, 2025). Applied to university leadership, this implies that demonstrating statistical associations between HEIs and regional innovation is insufficient. One must also uncover the mechanisms through which leadership practices foster alignment, trust-building and cross-sector articulation.

Models of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Beyond Structural Presence

The Sabato Triangle (Sábato & Botana, 1968), Triple Helix (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1996), Quadruple Helix (Ahonen & Hämäläinen, 2012) and Quintuple Helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009, 2014; Carayannis et al., 2012; Didriksson & de la Fuente, 2012) models have significantly shaped innovation ecosystem theory. Recent refinements of the Triple Helix framework emphasise that the effectiveness of university–industry–government interactions depends not only on institutional presence but also on the quality of coordination mechanisms and governance structures that enable knowledge circulation and collaborative innovation (Cai & Lattu, 2021; Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013).

However, these models largely assume institutional stability, governance coherence and policy continuity. In emerging regions, these assumptions frequently do not hold. While the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix incorporate civil society and sustainability, they offer limited guidance on coordination under fragmented governance conditions. The presence of actors does not guarantee alignment. Research on emerging innovation ecosystems shows that universities often assume catalytic roles in coordinating fragmented institutional environments, particularly where governance capacity and policy continuity are limited (Morais-da-Silva et al., 2020; Sihlobo & Mbatha, 2022; Vera, 2015). As González and Katonáné (2018) suggest, relational density and functional articulation are decisive for ecosystem maturity.

Citizen entrepreneurship literature enriches this debate by conceptualising citizens not merely as stakeholders but as active producers of innovation, capable of mobilising collective efficacy, commons-based governance and collaborative capabilities (Schikarski, 2024; Schneider, 2024; Wollschläger, 2024). Moreover, innovation understood as a public and social good requires institutional arrangements that facilitate knowledge diffusion and socially embedded value creation (Hogenschurz, 2021).

Therefore, the central limitation of existing helix-based models in emerging territories lies not in actor inclusion but in the absence of explicit mechanisms explaining how alignment is constructed. Recent scholarship further highlights the need to understand ecosystem dynamics through systemic and relational perspectives that account for institutional complexity, cross-sector collaboration and evolving governance mechanisms (Arthur et al., 2023; Hailu, 2024; Leydesdorff & Ivanova, 2021; Schmieder-Ramirez, 2023).

Drawing from evidential pluralism (Saridakis, 2025), this study argues that ecosystem effectiveness depends on identifying and strengthening the mediating mechanisms—such as relational coordination, trust formation, policy alignment and institutional bridging—that connect actors across structural divides.

The proposed Bridge Strategy Model builds on helix frameworks but shifts the analytical focus from structural configuration to relational governance processes. Universities are conceptualised not simply as one helix actor among others, but as strategic articulators capable of constructing alignment in contexts where spontaneous coordination is unlikely.

Methodology

Research Approach

This study adopts a qualitative and explanatory research approach aimed at understanding how universities can strategically lead the development of innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems in emerging regions characterised by fragmented institutional coordination. Qualitative approaches are suitable for examining complex and context-dependent phenomena, such as the interaction dynamics between universities, businesses, and government actors within territorial innovation systems (Hurtado, 2010).

Beyond describing institutional relationships, the study seeks to uncover the mechanisms through which university leadership influences ecosystem coordination, consistent with evidential pluralism in entrepreneurship and policy research.

Qualitative inquiry enables the exploration of relational dynamics and governance practices not captured through purely quantitative indicators. The approach, therefore, enables an in-depth examination of how leadership practices within HEIs shape collaboration, trust and alignment among actors in Magdalena’s regional innovation ecosystem.

Research Design

The research design is based on grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), an inductive methodological strategy that allows theoretical constructs to emerge from empirical data. Grounded theory is particularly appropriate when existing theoretical models do not fully explain the phenomenon under study—in this case, the functioning of innovation ecosystems in emerging regions with limited institutional cohesion.

While models such as the Triple Helix or Quintuple Helix provide structural frameworks for understanding university–industry–government interactions, they offer limited insight into how coordination emerges in fragmented institutional contexts. Grounded theory helps identify the patterns and processes shaping these dynamics.

Consistent with the principles of evidential pluralism, the study does not aim to establish universal causal laws but rather to identify context-sensitive mechanisms that explain how university leadership contributes to ecosystem articulation. This approach allows empirical observations to inform the development of the Bridge Strategy Model.

Units of Analysis

The study focuses on three interconnected institutional domains that constitute the core structure of the regional innovation ecosystem.

HEIs

Public and private universities located in the Department of Magdalena, particularly those involved in regional innovation initiatives and collaborative programmes.

Business Sector

Companies with active participation in university–industry collaboration initiatives, particularly those engaged in the University–Business–State Committee (CUEE), which serves as the primary regional coordination platform.

Government Sector

Public institutions are responsible for designing and implementing innovation and entrepreneurship policies at the local and national levels.

These units of analysis reflect the institutional configuration of the regional innovation ecosystem and allow for the examination of cross-sector interaction dynamics.

Data Collection Techniques

To ensure methodological rigour, the study applied triangulation until theoretical saturation was reached. Three primary techniques were employed.

Semi-structured Interviews

Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants representing the three stakeholder groups: university directors, business representatives and government officials.

The interview protocol consisted of 15 open-ended questions designed to explore:

Leadership practices within HEIs.

Strategic orientations towards innovation and entrepreneurship.

Collaboration mechanisms among ecosystem actors.

Perceived barriers to ecosystem coordination.

Semi-structured interviews allowed participants to provide detailed insights into institutional practices and interaction dynamics within the regional ecosystem.

Document Analysis

Document analysis was conducted to complement and validate the interview data. The reviewed materials included:

Institutional strategic plans.

Regional and national innovation policies.

Minutes of the CUEE.

Official reports related to innovation and entrepreneurship programmes.

This analysis provided contextual evidence on policy frameworks, institutional priorities and collaboration initiatives shaping the ecosystem.

Non-participant Observation

Non-participant observation was conducted during sessions of the CUEE. These observations allowed the researcher to document interaction dynamics among actors, including negotiation processes, leadership roles and collaboration challenges.

Field notes from these sessions were systematically recorded and later incorporated into the coding process.

Sample and Informant Selection

Participants were selected through purposive sampling, ensuring the inclusion of individuals with direct involvement in regional innovation initiatives and decision-making processes. This approach is commonly used in qualitative research when the objective is to obtain in-depth insights from actors with relevant experience and institutional knowledge (Patton, 2002).

The final sample consisted of 14 key informants, distributed as follows:

Six directors from HEIs, representing both public and private universities in the Magdalena region.

Six business sector representatives, actively engaged in university–industry collaboration initiatives.

Two government officials, one at the local level and one at the national level, responsible for policies related to innovation and entrepreneurship.

Although the sample size is limited, it captures key institutional perspectives within the regional innovation ecosystem. The selected participants occupy strategic roles within the CUEE platform, which serves as the principal coordination mechanism between academia, industry, and government in the region.

This sample is considered sufficient as it captures diverse institutional perspectives, ensuring a multi-actor analysis of the regional ecosystem. The selection was guided by relevance to innovation policies and their influence in decision-making processes (Patton, 2002). The composition of the sample is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Case Studies.

Actor	Nature		Level
Actor	Public	Private	National	Local	Quantity
Education (university)	2	3	4	1	5
Education (technical-technological institutions)	1	1	1	1	1
Local businesses (hotel, gastronomy, commercial, industrial and services sectors)	0	6	0	6	6
Government	2	0	1	1	2
Total actors/interviews	5	9	5	9	14

Data Analysis

The data were analysed using grounded theory procedures supported by NVivo software. The analysis followed three iterative stages.

Open Coding

Initial identification of concepts and categories emerging directly from the interview transcripts, observation notes and documentary sources.

Axial Coding

Grouping related categories to identify patterns, relationships and interaction dynamics among ecosystem actors.

Selective Coding

Integration of the most significant categories into a coherent explanatory framework describing the mechanisms through which university leadership influences ecosystem coordination.

Through this process, the analysis identified key relational mechanisms—including strategic alignment, trust-building and institutional bridging—that form the foundation of the Bridge Strategy Model proposed in this study.

To enhance reliability and validity, findings from interviews, document analysis and observations were systematically compared through data triangulation, ensuring consistency across multiple sources.

Methodological Limitations

As a qualitative case study, the findings are context-specific and cannot be generalised statistically to all emerging regions. However, the study provides analytical generalisation by identifying mechanisms that may be relevant for similar institutional contexts characterised by fragmented governance and limited coordination.

Future research could expand the empirical scope by incorporating additional regions or employing mixed-method approaches to test the proposed model quantitatively.

Research Ethics

The research adhered to established ethical standards for social research. All participants provided informed consent prior to the interviews and were assured that their identities would remain confidential. The collected data were used exclusively for academic purposes.

Results

University Leadership as a Coordination Mechanism

Findings indicate that HEIs are widely perceived as best positioned to articulate the regional innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem. Across interviews, universities were recognised for generating knowledge, training human capital and mediating between the public and private sectors. However, this leadership was also described as constrained by limited resources, discontinuous public support and weak institutional alignment. As one university executive stated, ‘The university can serve as a bridge, but we need more State support to consolidate these connections’ (University 1). From the business sector, this bridging role was acknowledged but also questioned in terms of practical impact: ‘Universities generate ideas, but those ideas don’t always translate into projects that benefit the community’ (Business 3).

These findings indicate that university leadership is recognised as necessary but insufficiently supported. Leadership, therefore, emerges less as a formal institutional position and more as a relational coordination mechanism that aligns interests, mobilises trust and sustains collaboration over time.

Fragmented Collaboration and Weak Institutionalisation

Data from interviews and CUEE sessions revealed that the main obstacle to ecosystem consolidation is not the absence of actors, but the weakness of coordination mechanisms among them. While some initiatives have emerged through university leadership, participants repeatedly emphasised that these efforts remain isolated and weakly institutionalised. One recurrent concern was that leadership depends too heavily on individual initiative rather than on stable structures: ‘Leadership should not depend on individuals but rather institutional commitment’ (CUEE Session, 2021).

This pattern reflects insufficient policy support, low business engagement and slow trust-building across sectors. Participants highlighted that firms do not consistently view universities as strategic partners and that the State has not yet assumed an effective coordinating role. These perceptions point to a fragmented ecosystem in which collaboration is often reactive, transactional and project-based rather than strategic and sustained.

Strategic Misalignment Between Universities and Territorial Demands

A second major finding concerns the disconnect between academic strategies and regional needs. Document analysis showed that universities in Magdalena increasingly incorporate innovation and entrepreneurship into their institutional discourse, yet these priorities are not always translated into operational programmes, measurable indicators, or durable partnerships. One institutional document explicitly acknowledged this limitation: ‘The university will promote innovation and entrepreneurship, but we lack clear indicators to measure its impact’ (Strategic Document, University 2, 2022).

This strategic gap was also visible in interview data. Both business and government actors insisted that ecosystem development must be more closely linked to Magdalena’s productive profile, especially tourism and agriculture, and to its infrastructure constraints. As one public official noted, ‘We cannot replicate models from other regions without considering our specificities’ (State Official 1). Similarly, a business representative argued that innovation efforts should prioritise ‘projects that enhance agricultural productivity and promote sustainable tourism’ (Business 6).

These findings reinforce the importance of contextualised strategic orientation. Innovation policy and university action must therefore be territorially grounded and responsive to regional economic and institutional conditions.

Weak Knowledge Translation and Limited Demand Alignment

Another recurrent theme was the perceived mismatch between university training and the practical demands of the ecosystem. Business actors recognised the value of academic knowledge, but they questioned its applicability to local productive challenges. This was reflected in statements such as: ‘Graduates acquire a lot of knowledge, but not necessarily those that companies require’ (Business 1), and ‘We need technical and practical training to address local problems’ (Business 3).

This finding links educational strategy with ecosystem performance. The issue is not only one of curricular relevance, but of institutional translation: the capacity of universities to convert teaching, research and outreach into solutions that are perceived as useful by external actors.

From Fragmented Interaction to the Bridge Strategy Model

Taken together, the findings reveal an ecosystem characterised by three interrelated constraints: fragmented collaboration, weak policy support and insufficient strategic alignment between academic capacities and territorial needs. At the same time, the data also show a clear willingness among actors to strengthen relationships, particularly through universities as ecosystem articulators.

Based on these empirical patterns, the study proposes the Bridge Strategy Model as a contextual response to low-coordination environments. Rather than assuming that collaboration naturally emerges from the presence of universities, firms and government, the model emphasises the need for deliberate mechanisms of relational coordination, including trust-building, policy alignment, multi-actor dialogue and territorially grounded strategic planning. In this model, universities occupy a central role not simply as knowledge producers, but as facilitators of ecosystem integration.

Comparative Relevance of the Proposed Model

The empirical findings suggest that existing frameworks such as the Sábato Triangle, Triple Helix and Quintuple Helix remain useful as structural references, but they do not fully explain how coordination is built in fragmented institutional contexts. The proposed model differs by focusing explicitly on the mechanisms required to make collaboration viable in emerging regions. In this sense, its contribution lies less in adding new actors than in clarifying how alignment can be constructed where institutional trust, policy continuity and collaborative routines remain weak.

Figure 1 presents the relational structure identified in Magdalena’s innovation ecosystem. The diagram illustrates how five strategic dimensions—transformational leadership, strategic orientation, interdisciplinary education, multisectoral collaboration and environmental sustainability—interconnect to shape ecosystem dynamics.

Figure 1.

Source: Prepared by the authors with NVivo.

The analysis also reveals associated conditions, including limited resources, actor engagement, public policies, innovation competencies, innovative projects and sustainable initiatives. Interdisciplinary education appears as a connecting element between leadership, strategic planning and collaboration.

Overall, the figure shows that ecosystem performance depends not only on institutional actors but on the alignment between leadership capacity, collaborative governance and innovation competencies within the territory.

Figure 2 presents the Bridge Strategy Model derived from the findings. The model positions HEIs as central articulators connecting businesses, the State, civil society and environmental sustainability within the regional innovation ecosystem.

Figure 2.

Note: HEIs: Higher Education Institutions.

Unlike traditional helix-based models, this framework emphasises universities’ role in facilitating interaction among actors, promoting knowledge transfer and aligning innovation initiatives with territorial needs. Civil society mediates between institutional actors and societal demands, while environmental sustainability guides ecosystem development.

The model conceptualises innovation ecosystems in emerging regions as relational systems where coordination, trust-building and multi-actor engagement are essential to translate knowledge into sustainable regional development.

Comparing the Bridge Strategy Model with Existing Frameworks

Existing innovation ecosystem models—such as the Triple Helix, Quintuple Helix and the Sábato Triangle—provide valuable theoretical foundations but do not fully address coordination challenges in low-institutional-capacity regions. Table 2 summarises the differences between these frameworks and the Bridge Strategy Model proposed in this study.

Table 2.

Comparative Analysis of Innovation Ecosystem Models.

Model	Strengths	Limitations	Relevance to Magdalena
Sábato Triangle (Sábato & Botana, 1968)	Latin America—focused model that highlights government leadership in innovation. Recognises the strategic role of policymakers in fostering technological development.	Heavily dependent on government intervention—ineffective in weak institutional settings where governance is fragmented.	Important but outdated—requires a more balanced multi-actor approach.
Triple Helix Model (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1996)	Focuses on university-industry-government collaboration as the foundation of innovation ecosystems. Widely applied in developed economies.	Assumes strong institutional coordination, which is often absent in emerging economies with weak governance and limited private sector engagement.	Useful but insufficient—lacks integration of societal and environmental factors critical for regional transformation.
Quintuple Helix Model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009)	Adds civil society and sustainability as key dimensions. Emphasises the role of social innovation and environmental concerns.	Difficult to implement in regions where governmental and industrial coordination remains weak. Lacks specific trust-building mechanisms.	More relevant than Triple Helix but still lacks actionable mechanisms to build trust between stakeholders.
Bridge Strategy Model (This study)	Integrates universities, businesses, government, civil society and sustainability while emphasising HEI leadership. Provides a structured mechanism for trust-building and long-term collaboration.	Requires long-term institutional commitment—its effectiveness depends on active participation and sustained engagement from all actors.	Highly relevant—addresses fragmented coordination, weak policies and ecosystem sustainability needs.

Note: HEIs: Higher Education Institutions.

Compared with existing frameworks, the Bridge Strategy Model emphasises relational coordination and trust-building mechanisms necessary in fragmented institutional environments. While the Triple Helix highlights structural collaboration and the Quintuple Helix incorporate societal and environmental dimensions, the proposed model focuses on how alignment among actors can be constructed in emerging regional ecosystems.

Conceptually, the Bridge Strategy Model extends helix-based ecosystem frameworks by positioning universities as relational governance actors rather than simply structural participants. This perspective emphasises that the effectiveness of innovation ecosystems in emerging regions depends on the ability of institutional actors to construct alignment mechanisms across fragmented organisational and policy environments.

Discussion and Conclusions

The findings show that innovation ecosystems in emerging regions cannot rely solely on structural actor configurations; their effectiveness depends on coordination mechanisms capable of aligning actors under fragmented governance conditions. In the case of Magdalena, universities emerge not only as knowledge producers but also as strategic articulators capable of connecting institutional resources, policy frameworks and regional development priorities.

This result complements and extends existing literature on entrepreneurial universities and regional innovation systems (Centobelli et al., 2019; Ierapetritis, 2019; Igual et al., 2020). While previous studies emphasise the role of universities in knowledge-intensive economies, this research shows that their influence in emerging ecosystems depends less on knowledge production and more on mobilising collaborative networks and facilitating institutional alignment. Transformational leadership and territorially oriented strategic planning, therefore, become key conditions for translating academic capabilities into regional innovation outcomes.

The empirical evidence confirms that entrepreneurship education must evolve from isolated curricular initiatives towards systemic ecosystem engagement. Studies such as Chohra (2019), Huang-Saad et al. (2017), Juvonen and Kurvinen (2018), Mason et al. (2020), Shekhar and Bodnar (2020) and Suryanto (2019) emphasise the importance of experiential learning, interdisciplinary education and university–industry collaboration in fostering entrepreneurial competencies. However, the Magdalena case demonstrates that these educational initiatives achieve greater impact when embedded within broader territorial innovation strategies.

Consistent with previous research on entrepreneurial education (Bazan et al., 2019; Bezerra et al., 2017; Bergmanna et al., 2018; Oftedal et al., 2018), the study shows that universities influence entrepreneurial behaviour not only through formal training but also through the creation of collaborative environments where students, firms and public actors interact. Such environments strengthen the relational infrastructure necessary for innovation ecosystems to emerge in fragmented institutional contexts.

The findings further highlight the importance of multisectoral collaboration between universities, businesses and public institutions. As noted by Belitski et al. (2019), Boh et al. (2016), Fuster et al. (2019), Kivimaa et al. (2017) and Schaeffer et al. (2018), universities can serve as key nodes within regional innovation networks by facilitating knowledge transfer and supporting collaborative innovation processes. In emerging regions such as Magdalena, however, these interactions tend to remain discontinuous unless supported by institutional leadership capable of sustaining long-term collaboration.

These results also reinforce the argument that innovation ecosystems must be analysed in relation to their territorial and socio-institutional context. In regions characterised by economic inequality, institutional fragility and historical social challenges, ecosystem models developed in highly institutionalised environments cannot be transferred without adaptation. Scholars such as Rouschop et al. (2015), Baskaran et al. (2019), Cheah and Ho (2019), Heaton et al. (2019), Kabbaj et al. (2016) and Mirvis and Googins (2018) emphasise the need to contextualise innovation strategies in order to address local development priorities and societal challenges.

The Bridge Strategy Model contributes to ecosystem theory by shifting attention from structural actor inclusion to relational governance mechanisms. Rather than assuming that the presence of universities, businesses and government actors automatically produces innovation, it emphasises how alignment, trust formation and strategic coordination are constructed among stakeholders.

For Magdalena and emerging regions, the Bridge Strategy Model offers a practical framework for strengthening innovation ecosystems through coordinated collaboration among universities, businesses, government institutions and civil society. By emphasising university leadership and policy integration, the model offers a pathway to transform fragmented interactions into stable ecosystem dynamics.

Practical Implications and Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the research relies on a qualitative case study focused on the Magdalena region, which limits the generalisability of the findings. While the qualitative approach allows for an in-depth understanding of contextual mechanisms, future research could expand the analysis to additional regions in order to compare ecosystem dynamics across different institutional environments.

Second, the relatively small number of interview participants reflects the exploratory nature of the study. Although theoretical saturation was achieved within the selected case, larger samples could provide a broader representation of ecosystem actors and perspectives.

Third, the proposed Bridge Strategy Model represents a conceptual framework derived from qualitative analysis. Future studies could test the model through comparative case studies or mixed-method approaches that combine qualitative insights with quantitative indicators of ecosystem performance.

Further research could explore the role of international collaborations between universities in emerging and developed economies as a mechanism for strengthening innovation capacity. Additionally, integrating citizen entrepreneurship more deeply into ecosystem analysis could provide valuable insights into how communities contribute to regional innovation and sustainable development.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Alexander Steffanell, Professor at Lee University, Cleveland, TN, USA. The authors also extend their gratitude to the University of Magdalena and the Doctorate Programme in Education Sciences. Finally, the authors acknowledge the Higher Education Institutions, companies and State entities that participated in this study.

Author Contributions

Milagro Patrón-Noriega: Principal investigator, bibliographic review, data collection, and analysis, findings, and conclusions, manuscript writing. Vanessa Pertuz: Advice and support throughout the research process, manuscript writing and style review.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available in the supplementary information for this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Declaration

The study adhered to ethical principles of informed consent, confidentiality and respect for participants. All informants signed an informed consent form, assuring them that their data would be used exclusively for academic purposes.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Supplementary Material

ORCID iDs

Milagro Patrón-Noriega

Vanessa Pertuz

References

Acs

Z. J.

, Stam

, Audretsch

, & O’Connor

(2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics , 49(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8

Ahonen

, & Hämäläinen

(2012). CLIQ: A practical approach to the quadruple helix and more open innovation. In Sustaining innovation (pp. 15–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2077-4_2

Alexiou

, & Saridakis

(2025). A review of the performance metrics and entrepreneurial practices of economics and business schools. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 11(2), 281–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575251335084

Arraut

(2011, Julio 07). Ecosistemas de emprendimiento. El Universal . https://www.eluniversal.com.co/opinion/columna/2011/07/07/ecosistemas-de-emprendimiento/

Arthur

, Moizer

, & Lean

(2023). A systems approach to mapping UK regional innovation ecosystems for policy insight. Industry and Higher Education , 37(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222221115977

Audretsch

, & Belitski

(2022). A strategic alignment framework for the entrepreneurial university. Industry and Innovation , 29(2), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2021.1941799

Audretsch

, Keilbach

, & Lehmann

(2007). Entrepreneurship and economic growth . Oxford Academic University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183511.001.0001

Baskaran

, Chandran

V. G. R.

, & Ng

B.-K.

(2019). Inclusive entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable growth: Role of business incubators, academia and social enterprises in Asia. Science, Technology and Society , 24(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873178

Bass

B. M.

(1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410

10.

Bazan

, Shaikh

, Frederick

, Amjad

, Yap

, Finn

, & Rayner

(2019). Effect of Memorial university’s environment and support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , 22(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221129

11.

Belitski

, Aginskaja

, & Marozau

(2019). Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding? Research Policy , 48(3), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.011

12.

Beraza

, & Rodríguez

(2007). La evolución de la misión de la universidad. Revista de Dirección y Administración de Empresas , 14, 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1387/251eea.11424

13.

Bezerra

É. D.

, Borges

, & Andreassi

(2017). Universities, local partnerships and the promotion of youth entrepreneurship. International Review of Education , 63(5), 703–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9665-y

14.

Bergmanna

, Geisslerb

, Hundtc

, & Graved

(2018). The climate for entrepreneurship at higher education institutions. Research Policy , 47(4), 700–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.018

15.

Birch

, Lichy

, Mulholland

, & Kachour

(2017). An enquiry into potential graduate entrepreneurship: Is higher education turning off the pipeline of graduate entrepreneurs? Journal of Management Development . https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-03-2016-0036

16.

Boh

W. F.

, De-Haan

, & Strom

(2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer , 41(4), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9399-6

17.

Cai

, & Lattu

(2021). Triple Helix or quadruple helix: Which model of innovation to choose for empirical studies? Minerva , 60, 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09453-6

18.

Carayannis

E. G.

, & Campbell

D. F. J.

(2009). Mode 3 and quadruple helix: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management , 46(3/4), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374

19.

Carayannis

, & Campbell

(2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: Arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-014-0012-2

20.

Carayannis

, Barth

, & Campbell

(2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2

21.

Castells

(2002, Julio). La dimensión cultural de internet. Debates Digitales: Cultura XXI: ¿nueva economía?, ¿nueva sociedad? UOC y el Instituto de Cultura del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona. https://www.uoc.edu/culturaxxi/esp/articles/castells0502/castells0502.html

22.

Centobelli

, Cerchione

, Esposito

, & Shashi

(2019). The mediating role of knowledge exploration and exploitation for the development of an entrepreneurial university. Management Decision , 57(12), 3301–3320. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1240

23.

Cheah

, & Ho

Y. P.

(2019). Building the ecosystem for social entrepreneurship: University social enterprise cases in Singapore. Science, Technology and Society , 24(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873190

24.

Chepurenko

, Kristalova

, & Wyrwich

(2019). Historical and institutional determinants of universities’ role in fostering entrepreneurship. Foresight and STI Governance , 13(4), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2019.4.48.59

25.

Chohra

(2019). A critical review of the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem in developing countries: The case of Algeria. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development , 18(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd_00008_1

26.

Consejo Privado de Competitividad. (2024). Índice Departamental de Competitividad 2024 . https://compite.com.co/indice-departamental-de-competitividad/

27.

Corbin

, & Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory method: Procedures, canons and evaluative procedures. Qualitative Sociology , 13, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

28.

CUEE Session . (2021). Minutes of the University–Business–State Committee session, Magdalena, Colombia (Unpublished meeting minutes).

29.

DANE. (2024). Informe de pobreza monetaria en Colombia 2023 . Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/pobreza-y-condiciones-de-vida/pobreza-monetaria

30.

Didriksson

, & de la Fuente

J. R.

(2012). Perspectives about the university’s social engagement. In E. Aponte Hernández (Ed.), La responsabilidad social de las universidades: Implicaciones para la América Latina y el Caribe (pp. 33–70). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244270

31.

Drucker

(2009). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles . Harper Business.

32.

Etzkowitz

(1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy , 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6

33.

Etzkowitz

, & Leydesdorff

(1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy , 23, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.5.279

34.

Etzkowitz

, & Leydesdorff

(2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy , 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

35.

Etzkowitz

, Webster

, Gebhardt

, & Terra

(2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy , 29(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4

36.

Franco-Leal

, Camelo-Ordaz

, Dianez-Gonzalez

J. P.

, & Sousa-Ginel

(2020). The role of social and institutional contexts in social innovations of Spanish academic spinoffs. Sustainability , 12(3), 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030906

37.

Fuster

, Padilla-Meléndez

, Lockett

, & del-Águila-Obra

A. R.

(2019). The emerging role of university spin-off companies in developing regional entrepreneurial university ecosystems: The case of Andalusia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 141, 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.020

38.

Garbanzo

, & Orozco

(2010). Liderazgo para una gestión moderna de procesos educativos. Revista Educación , 34(1), 15–29. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=44013961001

39.

Glaser

, & Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Aldine Publishing.

40.

Granstrand

, & Holgersson

(2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation , 90–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098

41.

Guerrero

, Kirby

, & Urbano

(2006). A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach . Business Economic Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona.

42.

Guerrero

, Urbano

, Fayolle

, Klofsten

, & Mian

(2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics , 47(3), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9755-4

43.

Guerrero

, Urbano

, & Gajón

(2020). Entrepreneurial university ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: Do entrepreneurship education programmes and university business incubators matter? Journal of Management Development , 39(5), 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2019-0439

44.

González

, & Katonáné

(2018). Defining the entrepreneurship ecosystem. SEA: Practical Application of Science , VI(18), 299–306.

45.

Hailu

A. T.

(2024). The role of university–industry linkages in promoting technology transfer: Implementation of Triple Helix model relations. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 13(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00370-y

46.

Hayter

C. S.

(2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics , 47(3), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3

47.

Heaton

, Siegel

D. S.

, & Teece

D. J.

(2019). Universities and innovation ecosystems: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change , 28(4), 921–939. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz038

48.

Hogenschurz

(2021). Strategies for the development of science, technology and innovation as a public and social good. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 7(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957520972221

49.

Huang-Saad

, Duval-Couetil

, & Park

(2018). Technology and talent: Capturing the role of universities in regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities , 12(2), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-08-2017-0070

50.

Huang-Saad

, Fay

, & Sheridan

(2017). Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-CorpsTM. Journal of Technology Transfer , 42(6), 1466–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9531-2

51.

Hurtado

(2010). Metodología de la Investigación. Guía para la comprensión holística de la Ciencia . Quiron Ediciones.

52.

Ierapetritis

D. G.

(2019). Discussing the role of universities in fostering regional entrepreneurial ecosystems. Economies , 7(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/economies7040119

53.

Igual

J. F. J.

, Martí

E. M.

, & Ribera

E. M.

(2020). Role of the social economy and the university in order to a venture based on technological knowledge and values | Rol de la economía social y la universidad en orden a un emprendimiento basado en el conocimiento tecnológico y los valores. CIRIEC-España Revista de Economía Publica, Social y Cooperativa , 98, 31–57. https://doi.org/10.7203/CIRIEC-E.98.15905

54.

Isenberg

D. J.

(2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review , 88(6), 40–50.

55.

Isenberg

D. J.

(2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economy policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship . Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project, Wellesley College.

56.

Juvonen

, & Kurvinen

(2018). A perfect ecosystem for learning? Modern thoughts for organizing higher education. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems , 3(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj030110

57.

Kabbaj

, El Ouazzani Ech Hadi

, Elamrani

, & Lemtaoui

(2016). A study of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem: The case of Morocco. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946716500217

58.

Keller

(1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education . Johns Hopkins University Press.

59.

Kivimaa

, Boon

, & Antikainen

(2017). Commercializing university inventions for sustainability—A case study of (non-) intermediating cleantech at Aalto University. Science and Public Policy , 44(5), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw090

60.

Kuhlmann

, & Rip

(2020). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy , 45(4), 448–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy011

61.

Lamine

, Mian

, Fayolle

, Wright

, Klofsten

, & Etzkowitz

(2018). Technology business incubation mechanisms and sustainable regional development. Journal of Technology Transfer , 43(5), 1121–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9537-9

62.

Leydesdorff

, & Ivanova

(2021). The measurement of interdisciplinarity and synergy in scientific and extra-scientific collaborations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72(4), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24416

63.

Link

A. N.

, & Sarala

R. M.

(2019). Advancing conceptualization of university entrepreneurial ecosystems: the role of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship , 37(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242618821720

64.

Lombana

, & Rozas

(2009). Marco analítico de la competitividad fundamentos para el estudio de la competitividad regional. Pensamiento and Gestión , 26, 1–38. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-62762009000100002&lng=en&tlng=es

65.

McKelvey

, & Zaring

(2017). Co-delivery of social innovations: Exploring the university’s role in academic engagement with society. Industry and Innovation , 25(6), 594–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1295364

66.

Martin

B. R.

(2010). Science policy research: Having an impact on policy ? OHE Seminar Briefing. https://www.ohe.org/publications/science-policy-research-having-impact-policy/

67.

Mason

, Anderson

, Kessl

, & Hruskova

(2020). Promoting student enterprise: Reflections on a university start-up programme. Local Economy , 35(1), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094219894907

68.

Mason

, & Brown

(2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth-oriented entrepreneurship (Final Report). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

69.

Max-Neef

, Elizalde

, & Hopenhayn

(1986). Desarrollo a escala humana: Una opción para el futuro . CEPAUR.

70.

Meisel-Roca

, & Ricciulli-Marin

(2018). La pobreza en Santa Marta: Los Estragos del Bien, Documentos de trabajo sobre economía regional y urbana, 266, Banco de la República de Colombia. https://doi.org/10.32468/dtseru.266

71.

Meoli

, Paleari

, & Vismara

(2019). The governance of universities and the establishment of academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics , 52(2), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9956-5

72.

Miller

, Alexander

, Cunningham

J. A.

, & Albats

(2018). Entrepreneurial academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Technology Management , 77(1–3), 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2018.091710

73.

Mirvis

, & Googins

(2018). Catalyzing social entrepreneurship in Africa: Roles for western universities, NGOs and corporations. Africa Journal of Management , 4(1), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2018.1428020

74.

Mitra

, Sokolowicz

, Weisenfeld

, Kurczewska

, & Tegtmeier

(2020). Citizen entrepreneurship: A conceptual picture of the inclusion, integration and engagement of citizens in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 6(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957520936884

75.

Morais-da-Silva

R. L.

, Segatto

A. P.

, Ribeiro

, & Vilela de Carvalho

A. C.

(2020). Social innovation ecosystem and the intensity levels of social entrepreneur cross-sector partnerships. REGEPE. Entrepreneurship and Small Business Journal , 4, 617–640. https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe.v9i4.1769

76.

Mukesh

H. V.

, & Rajasekharan Pillai

(2020). Role of institutional ecosystem in entrepreneurship education: an empirical reiteration. The Journal of Entrepreneurship , 29(1), 176–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355719893521

77.

Neck

H. M.

, Meyer

, Cohen

, & Corbett

(2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management , 42(2), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00105.x

78.

OECD. (2010). The OECD innovation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow . https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083479-en

79.

Oftedal

E. M.

, Lakovleva

T. A.

, & Foss

(2018). University context matter: An institutional perspective on entrepreneurial intentions of students. Education + Training , 60(7/8), 873–890. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2016-0098

80.

Pano

, & Gjika

(2020). Fostering students’ entrepreneurship through digital platforms. Universal Journal of Educational Research , 8(7), 3179–3188. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080747

81.

Patton

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods . Sage Publications.

82.

Peer

, & Stoeglehner

(2013). Universities as change agents for sustainability—Framing the role of knowledge transfer and generation in regional development processes. Journal of Cleaner Production , 44, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.003

83.

Porter

M. E.

(1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review , 74(6), 61–78.

84.

Portuguez-Castro

, Scheede

C. R.

, & Zermeño

M. G. G.

(2019). The impact of higher education on entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem: A case study in Mexico. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205597

85.

Ramírez

M. d. P.

, & García

(2010). La Alianza universidad-empresa-estado: Una estrategia para promover innovación. Revista EAN , (68), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.21158/01208160.n68.2010.500

86.

Ranga

, & Etzkowitz

(2013). Triple Helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry and Higher Education , 27(4), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165

87.

Romero

(2020). Liderazgo directivo en escuelas que superan las barreras del contexto. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación , 19(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2021.19.1.005

88.

Rouschop

, Salazar

, Cáceres

, Steudtner

, Vargas

, & Chamochumbi

(2015). Los retos de la articulación de los actores y las actoras de la sociedad civil en el Perú. In Sociedad civil en el Perú: desafíos de la diversidad (pp. 133–145). Unión Europea y la Cooperación Belga.

89.

Sábato

, & Botana

(1968). Science and technology in the future development of Latin America. In Proceedings of the World Order Models Conference (pp. 25–30). Bellagio (Italy).

90.

Saltos Briones

, Odriozola Guitart

, & Ortiz Torres

(2018). La vinculación universidad-empresa-gobierno: Una visión histórica y conceptual. ECA Sinergia , 9(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.33936/eca_sinergia.v9i2.1466

91.

Saridakis

(2025). How evidential pluralism can help clarify the nature of the relationship between unemployment and entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 11(1), 10–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575241257137

92.

Secundo

, Rippa

, & Cerchione

(2020). Digital academic entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 157, 120118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120118

93.

Shekhar

, & Bodnar

(2020). The mediating role of university entrepreneurial ecosystem on students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Engineering Education , 36(1A), 213–225.

94.

Schaeffer

P. R.

, Fischer

, & Queiroz

(2018). Beyond education: The role of research universities in innovation ecosystems. Foresight and STI Governance , 12(2), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.50.61

95.

Schikarski

(2024). Empowering communities through citizen entrepreneurship: a case study of the #Wirvsvirus project and its impact. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 10(2), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575241274379

96.

Schmieder-Ramirez

(2023). A new model for university/industry/government alliances utilizing innovation, distribution of resources and connectivity. In S. K. Dhiman, J. Marques, J. Schmieder-Ramirez, & P. G. Malakyan (Eds), Handbook of global leadership and followership (pp. 57–89). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75831-8_3-2

97.

Schneider

L. M.

(2024). The theory and processes of citizen entrepreneurship: How does citizen entrepreneurship work? Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 10(2), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575241262627

98.

Schumpeter

J. A.

(1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle . Harvard University Press.

99.

Shil

, Shahriar

M. S.

, Sultana

, Rahman

, & Zayed

N. M.

(2020). Introduction to university-based entrepreneurship ecosystem: A model case study from Bangladesh. International Journal of Entrepreneurship , 24(1), 1–10.

100.

Sihlobo

, & Mbatha

(2022). University-industry-government research and development collaborations in public higher education institutions in South Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development , 15(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2021.2016559

101.

Spilling

(1996). Regional variation of new firm formation: The Norwegian case. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , 8, 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985629600000014

102.

Sporn

(1996). Managing university culture: An analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches. Higher Education , 32, 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139217

103.

Stam

F. C.

, & Spigel

(2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystem. USE Discussion Paper Series , 16(13).

104.

Suryanto

(2019). Analysis of entrepreneurship ecosystem at university. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education , 22(4), 1–10.

105.

Thomsen

, Muurlink

, & Best

(2018). The political ecology of university-based social entrepreneurship ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities , 12(2), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-08-2017-0068

106.

UNESCO. (2015). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: Educación 2030 . Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura.

107.

University 2 . (2022). Strategic document/institutional strategic plan (Unpublished internal document).

108.

Vera

(2015). Los factores organizativos como determinantes del impacto de la cooperación con empresas. Un estudio en universidades latinoamericanas [tesis de doctorado, Universidad Complutense de Madrid]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/21645

109.

Villa-Enciso

, García-Mosquera

, Valencia-Arias

, & Medina-Valderrama

C. J.

(2023). Exploring the role of Latin American universities in the implementation of transformative innovation policy. Sustainability , 15(17), 12854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712854

110.

Wadee

A. A.

, & Padayachee

(2017). Higher Education: catalysts for the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, or…are we the weakest link? Science, Technology and Society , 22(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721817702290

111.

Wollschläger

(2024). How citizen entrepreneurship works. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies , 10(2), 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/23939575241261555

112.

Zeng

, Xie

, & Tam

C. M.

(2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation , 30(3), 181–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

7.45 MB