Authors : Fred Kasirye; Zurab Luckashvili

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4j9maypd

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5cvfzwfs

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26may1104

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study examines how University Innovation Centers (UICs) in Georgia's transition economy shape innovation behaviors, creative competencies, and employment outcomes through a student-centric framework triangulated with faculty and business user perspectives. Drawing on 151 respondents across six established UICs (July–November 2025), the study integrates Triple Helix Theory, Absorptive Capacity Theory, and Stakeholder Contingency Theory to model how institutional position shapes innovation agency, applying non-parametric tests to accommodate the ordinal data structure. Findings show that UIC engagement is strongly associated with creativity enhancement (Cohen's d = 1.32, p < .001), with students reporting the highest gains (M = 4.26) and external users experiencing the strongest career influence (56.2%). However, direct employment effects remain modest (27.6% sectoral alignment), constrained by limited workforce absorption in innovation-intensive sectors (5.6% of total employment) and significant awareness deficits (60.3% unaware). High-touch relational services achieve the highest outcome conversion, suggesting that UIC expansion policies should prioritize cognitive integration and differentiated service portfolios calibrated to stakeholder absorptive capacities rather than uniform commercialization metrics. The study advances a "differentiated agency" model that reframes university innovation impact from narrow commercialization outcomes toward equitable capability distribution in post-Soviet transition economies.

Keywords : University Innovation Centers, Citizen Innovation, Transition Economies, Triple Helix, Absorptive Capacity, Georgia, Stakeholder Contingency.

References :

1. Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.005
2. Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863
3. Batjargal, B. (2007). Comparative social capital: Networks of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in China and Russia. Comparative Economic Studies, 49(4), 543–566. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100206
4. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903053598
5. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science (2nd ed.). Harvester Press.
6. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000044
7. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage.
8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
9. Chulaia, G., & Kharitonashvili, L. (2022). Innovation ecosystems in post-Soviet transition economies: The case of Georgia. Innovation and Development, 12(3), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2021.1959880
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
12. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
13. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
14. D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z
15. Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
16. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.
17. Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004
18. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002
19. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (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
20. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
21. European Commission. (2021). European innovation scoreboard 2021. Publications Office of the European Union.
22. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.

23. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
24. Geostat. (2023). National statistics office of Georgia: Higher education and science indicators. https://www.geostat.ge
25. Government of Georgia. (2020). Innovation strategy of Georgia 2025–2030. Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development.
26. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2019). Effectiveness of university entrepreneurship support programs in developing entrepreneurial competencies. Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), 911–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1582016
27. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2018). Entrepreneurial university ecosystems: Toward a systematic framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 162–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.004
28. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2019). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.801
29. Hossain, M. (2020). Frugal innovation by grassroots entrepreneurs: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 255, 120296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120296
30. Hossain, M., Lemine, A. S., & Omrane, A. (2019). Citizen innovation: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 52, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.04.003
31. Indrani, J., Hossain, M., & Omrane, A. (2023). University innovation centers and citizen innovation: A systematic review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 188, 122315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122315
32. Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38(6), 922–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007
33. Kasirye, F., & Luckashvili, Z. (2024). University innovation centers in Georgia: A scoping study of stakeholder engagement patterns. Working paper. Caucasus University.
34. Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9061-4
35. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
36. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Wiley.

37. Marlow, S., & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00009.x
38. Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
39. Pirveli, M. (2019). Sectoral priority index as a tool for economic policy: The case of Georgia. Annals of Agrarian Science, 17(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasci.2019.04.001
40. Pirveli, M., Chikava, G., & Jashi, C. (2020). Accounting and audit reform in Georgia: Sectoral performance and priority weighting. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 19(3), 456–478.
41. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
42. Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (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
43. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
44. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm023
45. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Sage.
46. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
47. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. Handbook of University Technology Transfer, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410481-9.00001-0
48. Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2001). The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 8(4), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006818
49. Soria, K. M., Fink, A., Lepkowski, N., & Weiner, B. (2020). The impact of campus recreation and employment on student creativity and innovation. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2020.1729445
50. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429
51. UNECE. (2020). Science, technology and innovation policy review: Georgia. United Nations.
52. Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing language boundaries: The use of translated interview data in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400207
53. Williams, N., & Vorley, T. (2015). Institutional asymmetry in the United Kingdom and the effects on innovation and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(5–6), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.991443
54. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage.
55. World Bank. (2022). Georgia innovation ecosystem assessment. World Bank Group.
56. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Edward Elgar.
57. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351