Sport Management Studies

Strategies and Consequences of the Connection between Sports Science Faculties and Incubators/Science and Technology Parks

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Samaneh Almasi 1
Hossein Eydi 2
Homayoun Abbasi 3
Behzad Foroughi 4
Jerónimo García Fernández 5

1 PhD student in Sports Management, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Sports Management, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Sports Management, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

4 Assistant Professor of International Business Management, Aishu University, Cushing, Taiwan

5 Assistant Professor of Physical Education and Sports Science, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

https://doi.org/10.22089/smrj.2022.13035.3697
Abstract
Background and Purpose
Incubator centers (ICs) and Science and Technology Parks (STPs) serve as intermediaries between the government, academia, and industry, connecting the knowledge of scientists and researchers with industrial applications (Salvador et al., 2019, p.168). These centers have two primary objectives: fostering economic development by reducing unemployment and stimulating the creation of technology-based startups. In contrast, the sports industry is increasingly viewed as a global phenomenon and a key aspect of capitalism, posing challenges for universities to meet the growing demands of consumers in society (Popp, Simmons & McEvoy, 2017,p.99). Graduates in the field of sports science have access to numerous job opportunities, but concerns about securing future employment remain a significant issue for them (Vaghefi Nazari, Farahani & Khodadadi, 2015, p.175). To address this challenge and promote job creation, it is essential to establish connections between sports science faculties and incubators or science and technology parks. Therefore, the current study aims to explore strategies for fostering these connections and examine the potential consequences of such collaboration.
 
Materials and Methods
The present study is exploratory qualitative research in nature, with an applied purpose. An emerging approach (Glaser) was employed, consisting of three coding steps: open, axial, and selective coding. Data collection was carried out through three methods: (1) semi-structured one-on-one interviews, (2) written and electronic documents, which included referring to the theoretical literature of the research as well as written and electronic materials, and (3) direct observation. Three researchers participated in three innovation events from 2020 to 2021, including the establishment of an incubator center office in the Faculty of Sports Sciences at Razi University (Iran). The collected data were then analyzed.NVivo8 software was used for coding the data. The first data source was semi-structured interviews conducted with 14 experts in the field of sports entrepreneurship in Iran in 2021. The statistical population of the study included: professors and heads of sports faculties, vice chancellors of research at universities with a Faculty of Sports Sciences, heads of incubators and entrepreneurship centers at universities with a Faculty of Sports Sciences, heads of Science and Technology Parks (STPs), owners of sports startups, heads of accelerator companies for sports entrepreneurs, working teams involved in sports-related projects in incubators and STPs or who have received services from these centers, and the head of the Center for Innovation and Sports Technologies at the Institute of Sports Sciences in Iran.In this study, purposeful sampling method with snowball approach was used and a total of 14 interviews were conducted and recorded. Each interview lasted between 25 to 60 minutes. Ultimately, 205 open codes were obtained and divided into two main categories: strategies and consequences. The strategies were further categorized into 5 main categories and 15 sub-categories. The reliability between two coders, calculated using the following formula, was 81.48%, which is higher than the acceptable threshold of 60%, confirming the reliability of the coding process.
 
Findings
The extracted codes were finally divided into two categories of strategies and consequences. The strategies were categorized into five main categories and fifteen subcategories.
The five main strategy categoriesincluded the following:

Tendency to specialize (which was further divided into two subcategories: employing expert managers; employing expert human resources).
Support and support of sports ideas (which was further divided into three subcategories: Financial support; Organizational support; Spiritual support).
Creating and strengthening the spirit of entrepreneurship, innovation and ideation (which was further divided into four subcategories: Strengthening the culture of innovation in sports; Strengthening entrepreneurship education; Strengthening the entrepreneurial atmosphere in the faculty; Motivation).
Promoting interaction between the faculty, growth centers and the community (which was further divided into three subcategories: The relationship between the faculty and the community; Improving the quality of teamwork; Building trust between the centers the faculty).
Creating an entrepreneurship cafe in the college (which was further divided into three subcategories: Activating the innovation expertise center; Developing and implementing a sports business canvas; Utilizing potential capacities).
The consequences were divided into four main categories and nine subcategories. The four main categories of consequences included the following:Creation and development of sports job opportunities (which was further divided into three subcategories: Creating a positive vision for the faculty; Empowering the faculty; Improving the labor market).
Having the support of incubators and science and technology parks (which was further divided into two subcategories: Innovation and improving product quality ; Reducing investment risk).
Secure income generation (which was further divided into two subcategories: Reducing investment risk; Economic development).
Improving the quality of life in society (which was further divided into two subcategories: Meeting the needs of society; Improving the quality of life of the community).

 
 
 
Conclusion
The lack of connection between incubator centers (ICs), science and technology parks (STPs), and faculties of sports sciences can be attributed to the insufficient education and training of innovative and entrepreneurial individuals within the faculty.  Despite efforts made in recent years, the majority of students are still unfamiliar with topics such as idea generation, innovation, and startups. Sports science faculties can educate students on innovation and entrepreneurship through involvement with incubator centers (ICs) and science and technology parks (STPs). The lack of attention to sports from an early age has resulted in both students and society not fully recognizing sports as a science. As a result of such policies, the managers of the ICs and STPs are not familiar with the scientific achievements of the faculties of sports sciences and believe that the students of these faculties are not capable of innovating or creating products. The Ministry of Science's Curriculum Review Committee must revise the educational content of sports science faculties, shifting the focus towards entrepreneurship and ideation. Students can also be encouraged to generate ideas and innovations by sponsoring innovative theses. Additionally, the connection and support of the Sports Science Research Institute in Iran with the faculties of sports sciences can help further develop these ideas and guide them toward the ICs and STPs for implementation and growth.
 

Keywords

Sports Science
Incubators
Science and Technology Parks
Business
Self-Employment
  1. Al-Kfairy, M., Khaddaj, S., & Mellor, R. B. (2020). Evaluating the effect of organizational architecture in developing science and technology parks under differing innovation environments. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 100, 102036.
  2. Albahari, A., Barge‐Gil, A., Pérez‐Canto, S., & Modrego, A. (2018). The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms' innovation results. Papers in regional science, 97(2), 253-279.
  3. Almasi, S., Eydi, H., Abbasi, H. (2021). Identifying Barriers of communication Between Faculty of Sport Sciences with Incubator Centers and Science & Technology Parks in Iran. Sport Physiology & Management Investigations, 13(2), 41-57.
  4. Azimi Delarestaghi, A. (2014). Designing Strategic Entrepreneurship Model in Sports Business. North University.
  5. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business venturing, 20(2), 183-216.
  6. Corrocher, N., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2019). Do science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 140-151.
  7. Dalmarco, G., Hulsink, W., & Blois, G. V. (2018). Creating entrepreneurial universities in an emerging economy: Evidence from Brazil. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 99-111.
  8. Eveleens, C. P., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Niesten, E. M. (2017). How network-based incubation helps start-up performance: a systematic review against the background of management theories. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 676-713.
  9. Farahmandmehr, A., Sharififar, F., & Nikbakhsh, R. (2019). Designing and explaining the framework of entrepreneurship ecosystem in sports. sports management and development, 17(1), 63-83.
  10. Ghaffari, H., Shahiki, A., & TASH, M. (2020). The Impact of Information Technology Capabilities on Identifying Entrepreneurial Opportunities in Growing Companies Zahedan Science and Technology Park. Journal of Technology Growth, 16(6), 12-22.
  11. González-Serrano, M. H., Moreno, F. C., & Hervás, J. C. (2018). Sport management education through an entrepreneurial perspective: Analysing its impact on Spanish sports science students. The International Journal of Management Education, 100271,1-15.
  12. Gümüsay, A. A., & Bohné, T. M. (2018). Individual and organizational inhibitors to the development of entrepreneurial competencies in universities. Research Policy, 47(2), 363-378.
  13. Habibi, R., Asghari, Z., & Jafari, K. (2019). Identifying and Prioritizing the Factors Affecting the Development of University Technology Units Growth Centers (Case Study: Guilan University Technology Units Growth Center). Journal of Technology Growth, 14, 1-9.
  14. Hemme, F., Morais, D. G., Bowers, M. T., & Todd, J. S. (2017). Extending sport-based entrepreneurship theory through phenomenological inquiry. Sport management review, 20(1), 92-104.
  15. Klofsten, M., Lundmark, E., Wennberg, K., & Bank, N. (2020). Incubator specialization and size: Divergent paths towards operational scale. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119821.
  16. Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 559-595.
  17. Lindsey, I., & Darby, P. (2019). Sport and the Sustainable Development Goals: Where is the policy coherence? International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 54(7), 793-812.
  18. Mirghfouri , H., Sayadi Turanl , H., & Kariminia , H. (2013). Ranking of effective factors on promoting innovation in companies affiliated with growth centers using fuzzy TOPSIS technique; Case study of Yazd Science and Technology Park. Quarterly Journal of Parks and Growth Centers, 9(3), 19-29.
  19. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: sage.
  20. Naia, A., Baptista, R., Biscaia, R., Januário, C., & Trigo, V. (2017). Entrepreneurial intentions of sport sciences students and theory of planned behavior. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 23, 14-21.
  21. Pierce, D. (2019). Analysis of sport sales courses in the sport management curriculum. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 24, 17-29.
  22. Popp, N., Simmons, J., & McEvoy, C. D. (2017). Sport ticket sales training: Perceived effectiveness and impact on ticket sales results. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 26(2), 99.
  23. Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2018). Future research directions for sport education: Toward an entrepreneurial learning approach. Education+ Training.
  24. Revest, V., & Sapio, A. (2012). Financing technology-based small firms in Europe: what do we know? Small Business Economics, 39(1), 179-205.
  25. Salvador, D. S., Toboso-Chavero, S., Nadal, A., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., & da Silva, R. S. (2019). Potential of technology parks to implement Roof Mosaic in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 166-177.
  26. Schulenkorf, N. (2017). Managing sport-for-development: Reflections and outlook. Sport management review, 20(3), 243-251.
  27. Sidrat, S., & Frikha, M. A. (2018). Impact of the qualities of the manager and type of university on the development of the entrepreneurial university. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 29(1), 27-34.
  28. Soetanto, D., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2019). Life after incubation: The impact of entrepreneurial universities on the long-term performance of their spin-offs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 263-276.
  29. Stal, E., Andreassi, T., & Fujino, A. (2016). The role of university incubators in stimulating academic entrepreneurship. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, 13(2), 89-98.
  30. Sun, S. L., Zhang, Y., Cao, Y., Dong, J., & Cantwell, J. (2019). Enriching innovation ecosystems: The role of government in a university science park. Global Transitions, 1, 104-119.
  31. Svensson, P. G., Andersson, F. O., Mahoney, T. Q., & Ha, J.-P. (2020). Antecedents and outcomes of social innovation: A global study of sport for development and peace organizations. Sport management review, 23(4), 657-670.
  32. Svensson, P. G., & Hambrick, M. E. (2019). Exploring how external stakeholders shape social innovation in sport for development and peace. Sport management review, 22(4), 540-552.
  33. Vaghefi Nazari, R., farahani, A., Asad, M., khodadadi, M. (2015). Job Expectations of Physical Education Students of Their Job and Job Prospect in Tehran Azad Universities. Journal of Sport Management, 7(2), 175-189.
  34. Taslimi, Z. (2015). Presenting the financing framework of sports federations with the focus on self-sufficiency studied: athletics, swimming, gymnastics federations, doctoral thesis, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Gilan University.
  35. van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2020). Meeting, mating, and intermediating: How incubators can overcome weak network problems in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research Policy, 49(1), 103884.
  36. Vanessa, R. (2012). Sport entrepreneurship: challenges and directions for future research. International journal of entrepreneurial venturing, 4(1), 65-76.
  37. Vatan Khah, N., & Rezai Moghadam, K. (2015). Components and Barriers of the College of Entrepreneurship Establishment from the Perspective of Cooperative Member and Non-member Students of Shiraz University. Co-Operation and Agriculture, 4(15), 17-40.

 

 

Sport Management Studies
Volume 16, Issue 84 - Serial Number 84
May and June 2024
Pages 33-62

  • Receive Date 22 June 2022
  • Revise Date 19 July 2022
  • Accept Date 20 July 2022

Home

Publication Ethics

Submit Manuscript

News

Journal Metrics

Contact Us