مطالعه فرآیند مواجهه با موانع رشد در کسب‌وکارهای نوپای دانش‌بنیان دانشگاهی: یک پژوهش داده‌بنیاد به روش گلیزری

Purpose: University-based knowledge startups are recognized as pivotal agents in the shift from resource-based to knowledge-based economies. These ventures not only generate employment and drive technological advancement but also strengthen national competitiveness. Nevertheless, their high failure rates and limited scalability—particularly in developing countries such as Iran—reveal persistent structural, managerial, and institutional barriers. Existing literature has largely treated these barriers as static, isolated categories (e.g., financial, legal, technological, institutional), overlooking the dynamic, interactive, and nonlinear processes through which entrepreneurs navigate such challenges. This theoretical gap is especially salient in complex, unstable institutional environments marked by macroeconomic policy volatility, international sanctions, capital market inefficiencies, and weak intellectual property protection. This study examines how Iranian academic entrepreneurs confront growth barriers and addresses three core questions: (1) What are the different levels of growth barriers, and how are they perceived by entrepreneurs? (2) What are the interaction processes and strategies employed to overcome these barriers? and (3) What theoretical model best explains this process?

Methodology: Given the exploratory nature of the research and its aim of generating an integrated, emergent theoretical model grounded in empirical data, this study employs a qualitative approach using Glaser’s classical grounded theory methodology. The research population comprised founders and managers of active knowledge-based companies in Isfahan Province who were directly engaged with the phenomenon under investigation. Participant selection criteria included a minimum of five years’ practical experience in founding or managing a knowledge-based venture, relevant academic qualifications, and willingness to share experiential insights. Through purposive and snowball sampling, fifteen in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti (Version 9) through two primary coding stages: open coding (fragmenting data into initial concepts) and selective coding (grouping concepts into subcategories and core categories). Theoretical saturation was achieved by the twelfth interview; however, three additional interviews were conducted to ensure robustness. To ensure trustworthiness, Lincoln and Guba’s four criteria—credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability—were applied, supported by strategies including methodological triangulation, participant validation, meticulous documentation, and intercoder reliability (97%).

Findings: Data analysis yielded over 500 initial statements, 134 concepts, 21 subcategories, and six main categories: individual barriers, organizational-managerial barriers, institutional-governance barriers, socio-economic barriers, educational-cultural barriers, and insufficient institutional and network support. Growth barriers were further classified into three interconnected levels: (1) individual (e.g., psychological traits such as fear of failure and risk-averse attitudes); (2) organizational-managerial (e.g., financial resource constraints, weak strategic planning and decision-making, and human resource management challenges); and (3) institutional-governance (e.g., bureaucratic complexity, policy and regulatory instability, lack of transparency and enforcement, sanctions, and unfair competition). Among these, organizational-managerial barriers emerged as the core category, functioning as a critical mediator that translates external institutional pressures and internal individual challenges into tangible operational hurdles within the firm. The entrepreneurs’ coping process was conceptualized as a nonlinear, cyclical five-stage model: (1) barrier perception (identification and meaning-making), (2) strategy selection (a blend of entrepreneurial agency, bricolage, and resilience), (3) action and implementation of change, (4) feedback evaluation, and (5) organizational learning and adaptation. This process reveals entrepreneurs not merely as passive actors but as active learners who transform obstacles into opportunities for growth. Theoretically, the emergent model underscores the centrality of managerial empowerment, demonstrating that strengthening decision-making and planning capacities within founding teams can trigger a cascading effect that mitigates barriers across other levels.

Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that growth barriers operate within a complex, dynamic system across individual, organizational, and institutional levels, with organizational-managerial barriers serving a pivotal mediating role. The coping process is adaptive and nonlinear, with entrepreneurs employing strategies of agency, bricolage, and resilience to reframe barriers as learning opportunities. The study’s theoretical contribution is a systematic, context-sensitive model that clarifies the multilevel interplay of barriers in developing economies. Practically, it highlights organizational-managerial barriers as a strategic focal point, advocating internal capacity-building—particularly in strategic planning, financial management, and human resource development—as the most effective lever to counter external challenges. These insights offer an actionable framework for policymakers, investors, and young entrepreneurs to design support programs, assess startup potential, and formulate competitive strategies.