Suchergebnisse

Policy makers have for many years taken for granted that implementing dedicated structures aimed at supporting start-ups had a positive impact on the development of those start-ups. Indeed, building on insights provided by the literature on National/Regional Innovation Systems (Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993; Cooke et al. 1998; Asheim et al. 2003) and Incubations mechanisms (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Hackett and Dilts, 2004; Phan et al., 2005; Bergek and Norman, 2008; Bruneel et al, 2012) policy makers perceive such "business incubators" as a way to promote regional economic growth through the support of young and innovative firms. The underlying assumption is that incubators help young firms to develop their innovative products, commercialize them, and maintain a sustainable growth during the start-up period. As a consequence local policy makers have been and still are very enthusiastic in establishing and/or granting financial supports to incubators. For example, the National Business Incubation Association estimates that the number of incubators in the United States has increased from 12 in 1980 to 1,250 in 2012 and that there were about 7,000 such structures across the world. However, there is surprisingly little empirical validation of the positive impact of those structures, with few or no evaluation of their long term performance in helping incubated firms (Vanderstraeten et al., 2014; Schwartz, 2011). As a result, there is evidence of potential political pressure to keep some results under the radar (Fromhold-Eisebith and Eisebith, 2008; Amezcua, 2010; Bergek and Normann, 2008; Mian, 1997). Indeed, some studies indicate that among the new firms incubated, few became fast-growing firms and/or reached the status of middle-sized companies (Schwartz, 2011; Amezcua, 2010; Barringer, Jones and Neubaum, 2005; Phan, Siegel, and Wright, 2005). Besides the above-mentioned mixed research results (Amezcua, 2010; Phan, Siegel, and Wright, 2005), related methodological, theoretical, and empirical limitations (Yu and Nijkamp, 2009) raise criticism about incubator performance studies. Furthermore, those studies rely upon either quantitative (accounting) data available about the incubated start-ups to measure their development, or the qualitative coding and interpretation of interviews using standard content analysis techniques (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). (See for example Barringer, Jones and Neubaum, 2005, with both suffering from the typical limitations of such approaches). In particular it remains largely unknown whether incubation really helps overcoming the resource deficiencies that young firms face in the first years after their market entry (Hannan and Freeman 1984; Stinchcomb, 1965). Overall, an assessment of public policies regarding incubators is still needed (Bergek and Norrman, 2008; OECD, 2006; Mian, 1996a; Mian, 1997). Moreover, there are few studies investigating the impact of incubation on incubated ventures' performance from their own point of view (Fromhold-Eisebith and Eisebith, 2008; Schwartz, 2013; Vanderstraeten et al., 2014). As a consequence, research call for more qualitative bottom-up approach (see Diez, 2001) to explore the impact of incubators' support on incubated firms. In particular, how do incubators create a context that helps firms bring together the various resources they need (Hellmann & Puri, 2002)?

Policy makers have for many years taken for granted that implementing dedicated structures aimed at supporting start-ups had a positive impact on the development of those start-ups. Indeed, building on insights provided by the literature on National/Regional Innovation Systems (Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993; Cooke et al. 1998; Asheim et al. 2003) and Incubations mechanisms (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Hackett and Dilts, 2004; Phan et al., 2005; Bergek and Norman, 2008; Bruneel et al, 2012) policy makers perceive such "business incubators" as a way to promote regional economic growth through the support of young and innovative firms. The underlying assumption is that incubators help young firms to develop their innovative products, commercialize them, and maintain a sustainable growth during the start-up period. As a consequence local policy makers have been and still are very enthusiastic in establishing and/or granting financial supports to incubators. For example, the National Business Incubation Association estimates that the number of incubators in the United States has increased from 12 in 1980 to 1,250 in 2012 and that there were about 7,000 such structures across the world. However, there is surprisingly little empirical validation of the positive impact of those structures, with few or no evaluation of their long term performance in helping incubated firms (Vanderstraeten et al., 2014; Schwartz, 2011). As a result, there is evidence of potential political pressure to keep some results under the radar (Fromhold-Eisebith and Eisebith, 2008; Amezcua, 2010; Bergek and Normann, 2008; Mian, 1997). Indeed, some studies indicate that among the new firms incubated, few became fast-growing firms and/or reached the status of middle-sized companies (Schwartz, 2011; Amezcua, 2010; Barringer, Jones and Neubaum, 2005; Phan, Siegel, and Wright, 2005). Besides the above-mentioned mixed research results (Amezcua, 2010; Phan, Siegel, and Wright, 2005), related methodological, theoretical, and empirical limitations (Yu and Nijkamp, 2009) raise criticism about incubator performance studies. Furthermore, those studies rely upon either quantitative (accounting) data available about the incubated start-ups to measure their development, or the qualitative coding and interpretation of interviews using standard content analysis techniques (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). (See for example Barringer, Jones and Neubaum, 2005, with both suffering from the typical limitations of such approaches). In particular it remains largely unknown whether incubation really helps overcoming the resource deficiencies that young firms face in the first years after their market entry (Hannan and Freeman 1984; Stinchcomb, 1965). Overall, an assessment of public policies regarding incubators is still needed (Bergek and Norrman, 2008; OECD, 2006; Mian, 1996a; Mian, 1997). Moreover, there are few studies investigating the impact of incubation on incubated ventures' performance from their own point of view (Fromhold-Eisebith and Eisebith, 2008; Schwartz, 2013; Vanderstraeten et al., 2014). As a consequence, research call for more qualitative bottom-up approach (see Diez, 2001) to explore the impact of incubators' support on incubated firms. In particular, how do incubators create a context that helps firms bring together the various resources they need (Hellmann & Puri, 2002)?

Netzwerk für wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung und Personalentwicklung der Universitäten in Österreich: AUCEN
(Elke Gornik/Monika Kil/Katharina Mallich-Pötz/Anna Steiger/Christine Stöckler-Penz)
In diesem Beitrag werden die Entstehung von AUCEN, die Rahmenbedingungen der Universitätsgesetzgebung für wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung und Personalentwicklung, Projektaktivitäten und aktuelle Herausforderungen ausgeführt. Wirkungsvolle Interessenvertretung der universitären Weiterbildung in der Schweiz: Swissuni
(Andreas Fischer). Working together to promote University Lifelong learning in Europe: eucen (Françoise de Viron). This chapter presents eucen, a specific European university lifelong learning network. Using an organisational framework, based on the concepts of collaborative inter-organisational network and community of practice, it describes the characteristics, the functions and benefits of this network and highlights some prerequisites for its development. It concludes by a short test application of the framework to other networks dedicated to LLL at national level and highlights some examples in the case of Germany and the DGWF network.

Goals Since the 1990s, the European Commission has been implementing a lifelong learning policy as a foundation for the European strategy for growth and employment (EC, 1993 ; OJEC, 1997 ; EC, 2000 ; European Council, 2000 ; EC, 2010). The issue of employability aims at achieving convergence of European economic and social policies through the construction of an active welfare state. In French-speaking Belgium universities, continued education has been rising since the same period (MB, 1994 ; Vertongen et al., 2009). Among other things, universities have been implementing so-called "certificates", which are continued education programs not leading to a diploma. Our goal is to compare the justifications of the European Commission, those of French-speaking Belgian authorities and those of university certificates promoters regarding lifelong learning, in order to identify the logical determinants which underlie the rise of university certificates in French-speaking Belgium. Main perspective or theoretical/conceptual framework The cities theoretical framework (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991 ; Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999) will be used to analyze the public justifications provided by various institutional actors regarding the rise of continued education within universities, and how those principles intersect. The concept of boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989) will allow us to describe how university certificates are vested with meanings that vary according to the actors (academics in charge, university authorities). Research design We aim at linking together the macro-, meso- and micro-social levels through lexicometric and content analysis of discourses gathered from actors from those three levels, namely Europe, French-speaking Belgium, and one specific university. Data sources • Public discourses from European Commission, French-speaking Belgian Parliament and universities official documents; • certificates approval files from one specific university; they will be analyzed and categorized according to their goals and their number of ECTS; • semi-structured interviews with the academics and university authorities in charge of the certificates. Results Hypothesis: certificates allow for the coexistence of various – and at times conflicting – justification principles. This diversity is what allows heterogeneous actors to find interest in certificates and to achieve their implementation.

Goals Since the 1990s, the European Commission has been implementing a lifelong learning policy as a foundation for the European strategy for growth and employment (EC, 1993 ; OJEC, 1997 ; EC, 2000 ; European Council, 2000 ; EC, 2010). The issue of employability aims at achieving convergence of European economic and social policies through the construction of an active welfare state. In French-speaking Belgium universities, continued education has been rising since the same period (MB, 1994 ; Vertongen et al., 2009). Among other things, universities have been implementing so-called "certificates", which are continued education programs not leading to a diploma. Our goal is to compare the justifications of the European Commission, those of French-speaking Belgian authorities and those of university certificates promoters regarding lifelong learning, in order to identify the logical determinants which underlie the rise of university certificates in French-speaking Belgium. Main perspective or theoretical/conceptual framework The cities theoretical framework (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991 ; Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999) will be used to analyze the public justifications provided by various institutional actors regarding the rise of continued education within universities, and how those principles intersect. The concept of boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989) will allow us to describe how university certificates are vested with meanings that vary according to the actors (academics in charge, university authorities). Research design We aim at linking together the macro-, meso- and micro-social levels through lexicometric and content analysis of discourses gathered from actors from those three levels, namely Europe, French-speaking Belgium, and one specific university. Data sources • Public discourses from European Commission, French-speaking Belgian Parliament and universities official documents; • certificates approval files from one specific university; they will be analyzed and categorized according to their goals and their number of ECTS; • semi-structured interviews with the academics and university authorities in charge of the certificates. Results Hypothesis: certificates allow for the coexistence of various – and at times conflicting – justification principles. This diversity is what allows heterogeneous actors to find interest in certificates and to achieve their implementation.