Arts Incubators: A Typology

Abstract

Recent policy initiatives evidence a vigorous interest in arts-based community development. Arts incubators are one means for such development, as well as a means for supporting artists and arts organizations. Literature suggests wide variance across arts incubator objectives: some aim “to produce successful firms that will leave the program financially viable and freestanding,” while others pursue such diverse goals as supporting individual professional development, providing gallery space, or advocating for social change. There is also a diversity of organizational forms, governance structures, and funding models. This article offers a typology of arts incubators based on organizational objectives through the lens of stakeholder theory.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig]
On: 21 August 2014, At: 09:01
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Arts Management, Law,
and Society
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20
Arts Incubators: A Typology
Linda Essiga
a Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Published online: 19 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Linda Essig (2014) Arts Incubators: A Typology, The Journal of Arts Management,
Law, and Society, 44:3, 169-180, DOI: 10.1080/10632921.2014.936076
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2014.936076
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT, LAW, AND SOCIETY, 44: 169–180, 2014
Copyright C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1063-2921 print / 1930-7799 online
DOI: 10.1080/10632921.2014.936076
Arts Incubators: A Typology
Linda Essig
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Recent policy initiatives evidence a vigorous interest in arts-based community development. Arts
incubators are one means for such development, as well as a means for supporting artists and
arts organizations. Literature suggests wide variance across arts incubator objectives: some aim
“to produce successful firms that will leave the program financially viable and freestanding,” while
others pursue such diverse goals as supporting individual professional development, providing gallery
space, or advocating for social change. There is also a diversity of organizational forms, governance
structures, and funding models. This article offers a typology of arts incubators based on organizational
objectives through the lens of stakeholder theory.
Keywords arts entrepreneurship, arts incubators, community economic development, stakeholder
theory
INTRODUCTION
When the National Business Incubator Association (NBIA) published Incubating the Arts:
Establishing a Program to Help Artists and Arts Organizations Become Viable Businesses in
2000, it relied on the expertise of the constituent members of the Arts Incubator Alliance, a group
of six incubator entities that focused primarily on nurturing nonprofit arts organizations seeking
to build capacity for their next phase of growth and development (see Gerl 2000). Thirteen years,
two recessions, and a devastating hurricane later, the alliance is dissolved and only two of the six
entities still exist but there are some forty other organizations calling themselves, or being called
by others, “arts incubators.” Many of these have been initiated in the intervening years, not only
to nurture nonprofit organizations, but also to boost local economies, strengthen communities
and, most frequently, provide individual artists with tools for self-sufficiency in the market-driven
economy of the twenty-first century.
With this greater diversity of arts incubation activities comes a concomitant diffusion of the
scope and direction of arts incubator activities. The purpose of the current research is to describe
the various types of incubators and incubator programs currently active in the US based on their
organizational structure, goals, and target stakeholders as a foundation for future research on arts
incubators rather than to posit a concrete definition, although one is operationalized below for the
This article was originally presented at the Conference on Social Theory, Politics & the Arts, in Seattle, Washington,
in 2013.
Address correspondence to Linda Essig, School of Film, Dance, and Theatre, Arizona State University, P.O. Box
872002, Tempe, AZ 85287. E-mail: linda.essig@asu.edu
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

170 ESSIG
purposes of this article. While nonprofit arts organizations (i.e., those having or seeking 501c3
designation) were the primary client stakeholders of members of the Arts Incubator Alliance
in 2000, a survey of materials published by currently operating arts incubators indicates that
stakeholders and incubator clients now include both for-profit and nonprofit arts and creative
enterprises, individual artists, and communities. Organizational goals vary from revitalizing
local economies to supporting individual artists, to provoking public dialogue, and more. Some
alignment is observed between organizational goals and service provision, while organizational
form does not appear to align similarly.
THE INCUBATOR CONTEXT
The National Business Incubator Association describes business incubators as delivering
programs that “nurture the development of entrepreneurial companies, helping them survive
and grow during the start-up period, when they are most vulnerable” (NBIA 2013). Entrepreneur
Magazine’s definition is complementary: “An organization designed to accelerate the growth
and success of entrepreneurial companies through an array of business support resources and
services that could include physical space, capital, coaching, common services, and networking
connections” (Entrepreneur 2013). Both emphasize the growth of young companies. “A business
incubator’s main goal is to produce successful firms that will leave the program financially viable
and freestanding” (NBIA 2013). Incubators distinguish themselves from business consultants
and research parks “through their particular competitive scope, strategic objective, and service
package” (Carayannis and Von Zedtwitz 2005, 103).
As I write elsewhere (Essig 2014), early literature on business incubators (e.g., Allen and
Rahman 1985) focused on the incubator as a facility, while more recent literature focuses on the
services an incubator provides (see Hackett and Dilts 2004). Bergek and Norman (2008) observe
this shift:
In the incubator literature, the relative emphasis on each component has varied over time, from an
initial focus on facilities and administrative services to a more recent emphasis on the importance of
business support (Peters et al. 2004). In our opinion the latter is the most important—without business
support activities, the denomination “hotel” is a better description than incubator. (21)
Some definitions (e.g., Grimaldi & Grandi 2005) include provision for linking capital to new
ventures or, at least, the introduction of potential investors to emerging entrepreneurs, while
others do not (Peters, Rice, and Sundararajan 2004).
The NBIA considers arts incubators to be a subset of business incubators that specifically
target “arts and crafts” (NBIA 2013). Kahn’s 1995 white paper on arts incubators examined six
organizations that “are concerned with nurturing arts organizations by facilitating their organiza-
tional growth and development” (Kahn 1995, 1). Kahn distinguishes this model of arts incubator
from others that “provide artists with the business skills necessary to be successful in the mar-
ketplace” (2). Gerl (2000) credits the oldest of the facilities profiled by Kahn—Arts Bridge in
Chicago—as being the first arts incubator. She explains that arts incubators “equip nonprofit
cultural groups and arts entrepreneurs with the skills, tools, and business environment necessary
to meet short- and long-range objectives” (2). The Polish Art Inkubator (2013) provides a useful
and more current definition, adapted here from a verbatim translation: “an arts incubator is an
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

ARTS INCUBATORS: A TYPOLOGY 171
organization that supports future entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations and artists by
helping them to enter the creative industries sector. Arts incubators are a platform that empowers
artists and organizations to implement their business and artistic ideas.” This definition is partic-
ularly useful for the current study because it is inclusive of for-profit, nonprofit, and individual
client stakeholders and implies early-stage development and market entry, thus distinguishing
arts incubators from other artist services and support organizations such as residency programs.
It uses the word “platform” rather than “facility” to be inclusive of both physical and virtual
incubators.1To develop the current typologies, organizations or programs are considered to be
“arts incubators” if they provide some form of developmental assistance (i.e., a “platform,” the
scope of which varies) to artists, arts organizations, or creative enterprises in early stages of
development or change and call themselves or are called by others in published materials “arts
incubators.”
Incubator Typologies
Several business incubator typologies exist (see Aernoudt 2004) that are generally organized
by objectives, sponsoring entity, corporate form, or service provision. Aernoudt structures a
typology of business incubators based on the first: program objectives. Working from the premise
that the objective of an incubator is to resolve a specific market gap, he identifies three main types
of incubators and two additional sectoral categories. The three types are economic development
incubators, technology incubators, and mixed incubators. The two additional categories are social
incubators and basic research incubators (Table 1). To this short list of sectoral categories, one
could add “arts incubators.”
However, Allen and McCluskey (1990) base their typology on sponsor/stakeholder. They
identify four types of business incubators as a basis for developing a value-added contin-
uum: for-profit development incubators, nonprofit development corporation incubators, academic
incubators, and for-profit seed capital incubators. I have written elsewhere (Essig 2014) of
the challenge of organizing incubators on a continuum in this manner, when the objectives
TABLE 1
Aernoudt’s Typology of Business Incubators (Aernoudt 2004, 129)
Main Philosophy:
Dealing with Main Objective Secondary Sectors Involved
Mixed incubators Business gap Create start-ups Employment creation All sectors
Economic development
incubators
Regional or local
disparity gap
Regional
development
Business creation All sectors
Technology incubators Entrepreneurial gap Create
entrepreneurship
Stimulate innovation,
technology
start-ups and
graduates
Focus on technology,
recently targeted;
e.g., IT, speech-,
biotechnology
Social incubators Social gap Integration of social
categories
Employment creation Nonprofit sector
Basic research
incubators
Discovery gap Bleu-Sky research Spin-offs High tech
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

172 ESSIG
themselves are categorical and nonlinear. Peters et al. (2004) use a similar typology based
on the corporate form of the incubator without linking the form to the value-added by each
type:
(a) Nonprofits focused on diversifying the local economy—like small business incubators, (b) incu-
bators linked to universities, and (c) for-profit incubators—like private organizations. (84)
Another means of categorization is by scope of services, as service provision is critical
component of an incubator (Bergekk and Norman 2008). The proposed arts incubator typology
looks at both target/objectives and sponsor/form to account for the complexity and to observe
correlations across the categorization criteria.
METHODOLOGY
To develop the arts incubator typology, it was necessary to inventory arts incubators. Over a
period of months, I gathered the names of as many incubators as possible from multiple sources
and then researched each incubator individually. The inventory is therefore a snapshot of arts
incubator activity taken during May-August 2013.2The inventory was developed in several
stages. A preliminary list was developed from a key word search on Google and on LexisNexis
using the terms “art incubator” and “arts incubator.” This was followed by a database search of
scholarly literature. Arts incubators cited by the 1995 National Association of Local Arts Agencies
descriptive study on the topic (Kahn 1995), the Gerl (2000) monograph, and others were added
to the list. I made direct inquiries of the research directors of the National Business Incubation
Association, Americans for the Arts, and National Association of State Arts Agencies, none of
which have or maintain lists of arts incubators. Finally, an open call went out to the Cultural
Research Network (CRN) for the names of arts incubators that may have been missed in the other
searches.
This initial search yielded a list of sixty-five entities. Five incubators were outside of the US
and eliminated from the study.3Nine more were eliminated because they were in the planning
stages only, had been planned or never opened, or otherwise had ceased operations. Another
eight were eliminated because they did not “provide developmental assistance to artists, arts
organizations, or creative enterprises.” Among those eliminated, for example, are programs such
as “Flourish Studios,” which is a counseling center, or a local arts agency that does not provide
incubation beyond the granting programs one normally expects from such entities, and small
business incubators that do not specifically target the arts or creative industries. Programs or
organizations that only provide space without the training, mentoring, and business services of
an incubator (e.g., the Greenpoint Manfuacturing and Design Center in Brooklyn, NY, suggested
for inclusion by a CRN member) are likewise not included. Such facilities are considered to be
a “hotel.” Similarly, I excluded co-working spaces that do not provide services or do not focus
on the arts, even though I acknowledge that all of these are important components of the arts
enterprise development infrastructure.
Program objectives were determined from the mission statements found in publicly avail-
able sources such as websites. For nonprofit organizations, this information was double-checked
against IRS Form 990 filings. The 990 forms were also used to confirm whether an organization
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

ARTS INCUBATORS: A TYPOLOGY 173
was a 501c3 corporation and whether or not it was a community development or economic devel-
opment commission, organizational forms that are delineated in the final inventory. In addition to
the name, location, corporate form, and objective target (synthesized from the published mission
statements), the inventory (see Table 2) also indicates whether or not an arts incubator offers the
following services:
•Facilities: for the creation, exhibition, or performance of art and/or office space;
•Services: business services might include but are not limited to cooperative marketing
efforts, reception, copying, bookkeeping;
•Training: training in business practices;
•Funding: via grants, loans, or equity investment;
•Fiscal sponsorship.
ARTS INCUBATOR TYPOLOGIES
By sorting the inventory by the primary target of organizational objective, I immediately
noticed that certain kinds of services appeared to connect with certain types of targets. Stake-
holder theory provides a useful means by which to relate organizational objectives to these
targets. Thus, one means of categorization is by object target or, as explained in the following,
claimant stakeholder. Business incubator typologies, as noted earlier, have also focused on spon-
sor form, so a second categorization of arts incubator type is by the organizational form of the
incubator.
Theoretical Frame: Stakeholders
Freeman (1984) offers a widely accepted, now considered “classical” (Fassin 2009), definition
of a stakeholder: a group or individual that “can affect or is affected by the achievement of
an organization’s objectives” (46). Kaler (2002) divides stakeholders into two groups or “status
categories,” “influencers” and “claimants,” which seem to align with Freeman’s “can affect or is
affected by” distinctions. Claimant stakeholders “have some kind of claim on the services of the
organization” (91), while influencer stakeholders “can influence the workings of the business in
some way” (91).
Based on Kaler’s definition, the primary claimant stakeholder of an arts incubator is not
necessarily the client artist or arts enterprise. The primary claimant may be a third-party benefi-
ciary of the organization’s services. The success of a client may benefit, for example, the owner of
a for-profit incubation facility who invests in an equity stake in client enterprises, or a community
may benefit from an increase in cultural production in a neighborhood. The primary claimant is
considered to be the target of the organization’s stated objectives and so is used as proxy for the
objectives themselves. Objectives such as “promote, nurture, and cultivate the vision and diverse
talents of emerging artists from the Latin and Caribbean Diaspora” (Diaspora Vibe 2013) and
“help artists turn art into business” (ArtServe 2013) both target the same claimant group: artists,
although one targets a specific subset thereof. Broadly construed, the primary objective of such
incubators is to support artists and art making. In such cases, claimant stakeholder and client
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

174 ESSIG
TABLE 2
Inventory of Arts Incubators by Claimant Stakeholder
City State
Claimant
Stakeholder Form Facility Services Training Funding
Fiscal
Sponsor
18th St. Arts
Center
Santa Monica CA artists 501c3 •
ArtServe Fort
Lauderdale
FL artists 501c3 ••
Business of Arts
Center
Manitou
Springs
CO artists 501c3 •• •
Center for
Cultural
Innovation
San Jose CA artists 501c3 •••
Diaspora Vibe
Cultural Arts
Incubator
Miami FL artists 501c3 ••
Z Space San Francisco CA artists 501c3 •
Arts Office
Lauderhill∗
Lauderhill FL artists city entity •• •
1
Flight School Pittsburgh PA artists program of
501c3
•
Project Row
Houses Artist
Incubation
Houston TX artists program of
501c3
•
Montana Artist
to Market
Helena MT artists state agency
program
•••
SC Artists
Ventures
Initiative
Columbia SC artists state agency
program
••
Public Art
Incubator
Cedar Falls IA artists university
program
••
Arts Incubator of
the Rockies
Fort Collins CO artists 501c3 ••
Creative Capital New York NY artists 501c3 ••
Incubator Arts
Project∗
New York NY artists program of
501c3
••
Legion Arts Cedar Rapids IA artists/orgs 501c3 •••••
Arts Business
Program of
Arts Council
of New
Orleans∗
New Orleans LA artists/orgs city agency
program
•••
Springboard for
the Arts
Minneapolis MN artists/orgs program of
501c3
•• •
Intersection
Incubator
San Francisco CA artists/orgs program of
501c3
•• •
Houston Arts
Alliance
Resident
Incubator
Houston TX arts orgs program of
501c3
•• • •
(Continued on next page)
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

ARTS INCUBATORS: A TYPOLOGY 175
TABLE 2
Inventory of Arts Incubators by Claimant Stakeholder (Continued)
City State
Claimant
Stakeholder Form Facility Services Training Funding
Fiscal
Sponsor
Baltimore Arts Baltimore MD arts orgs program of
501c3
••
Virtual Arts
Incubator
Cincinnati OH arts orgs program of
501c3
•
Arts Incubator of
Richardson
Richardson TX community 501c3 ••
New Jersey Arts
Incubator
West Orange NJ community 501c3 ••
North Carolina
Arts Incubator
Siler City NC community 501c3 •• •
St. Elmo Village Los Angeles CA community 501c3 •
Carrizozo Works Carrizozo NM community 501c3 CDC •
Common Wealth
Development
with Arts
Madison WI community 501c3 CDC •
Spaceworks Tacoma WA community city
program
•• •
Stone Mountain
Arts Incubator
Stone
Mountain
GA community city
program
•• •
Swainsboro Art
Incubator
Project
Swainsboro GA community city
program
••
Arlington Arts
Arts Incubator
Arlington VA community city
program
•••
University of
Chicago Arts
Incubator
Chicago IL community university
program
•
Detroit Creative
Corridor
Center
Detroit MI creative
sector en-
trepreneurs
501c4 •• •
Brown County
Arts
Incubator∗
Brown
County
IN creative
sector en-
trepreneurs
County
EDC
•• •
Flywheel Arts
Incubator
Sacramento CA creative
sector en-
trepreneurs
program of
501c3
•• •
New York
Designs
Business
Center
Long Island
City
NY creative
sector en-
trepreneurs
university
extension
program
•• •
ECU Arts
Incubator
Ada OK creative
sector en-
trepreneurs
university
extension
program
••
Corzo Creative
Incubator
Philadelphia PA creative
sector en-
trepreneurs
university
program
••••
(Continued on next page)
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

176 ESSIG
TABLE 2
Inventory of Arts Incubators by Claimant Stakeholder (Continued)
City State
Claimant
Stakeholder Form Facility Services Training Funding
Fiscal
Sponsor
4731 Group Detroit MI owner LLC ••
3
BC Studios Decatur IL students university
program
•• • •
Pave Arts
Venture
Incubator
Tempe AZ students university
program
•••
Brooklyn Art
Incubator
Brooklyn NY youth 501c3 •2
1Training is through separate county program (Artist as Entrepreneur Initiative).
2A community arts initiative to help youth develop artistically and economically.
3Funding is through equity investment rather than granting.
∗Data collected after the 2013 snapshot indicates that this program has ceased or announced its intention to cease; three
additional incubators not included on this list are Mighty Tieton, an affiliation of 501c3 organizations in Tieton, WA,
residing in an LLC-owned facility, the Sammons Art Center, a 501c3 organization in Dallas, TX, and Maker City, recently
opened in Los Angeles.
are the same. However, objectives to “nurture the growth of the business of art in our town”
(Carizzozo Works 2013) or “plan for, build, develop, foster, and nurture a creative economy in the
City of Stone Mountain, Georgia” (Stone Mountain Arts Incubator 2013) do not target individual
artists. Rather, the community is the target of the organization’s objective and therefore its chief
claimant stakeholder, although individual artists or arts enterprises may be the incubator clients.
Arts incubation, in these instances, is a means toward community development rather than an end
in itself.
Each incubator may have multiple influencer stakeholders, including stakeholders who are
both claimants and influencers. Funders, real estate developers, city, state, and even federal
arts agencies are stakeholders. The primary influencer stakeholder, however, is the incubator
itself, morally responsible to the claimant stakeholders for the delivery of services (see Kaler
2002).
Typology by Claimant Stakeholder
A careful review of the mission statements of the forty-three arts incubators yields a typology of
six targets of incubator objectives; that is, the stakeholder group that claims the primary focus of
the arts incubator. Fully half of the incubators target artists (fifteen), arts organizations (three), or
both (four). Eleven target the “community,” six target creative sector small-business entrepreneurs,
three specifically target students or youth, and one—the only for-profit incubator on the list—seeks
to return profit to its owner via equity investment in creative industry start-ups. Using the claimant
stakeholder as proxy for organizational objective, arts incubators can therefore be broadly grouped
by objective as “art incubators,” “community development incubators,” “student incubators,” and
“commercial incubators” (see Table 3).
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

ARTS INCUBATORS: A TYPOLOGY 177
TABLE 3
Typology of Arts Incubators
Arts Incubator Type
Primary Claimant
Stakeholder Incubator Clients
Typical Primary
Objective Quantity
Art Incubators Artists and arts
organizations
Artists, arts
organizations
Provide assistance to
individual artists and
organizations as they
work to develop and
sustain their artistic
work
22
Community
Development
Incubators
Communities Artists, arts
organizations,
craftspeople,
small-business owners
To build and sustain a
vibrant, diverse,
engaged, inclusive,
and safe community
11
Commercial Incubators Creative industries
entrepreneurs
(small-business
owners)
Artists, craftspeople,
small-business owners
To help arts-oriented
businesses start and
grow
7
Student Venture
Incubators
Student artists Student artists Education through
investment in student
creativity and
innovation
3
Because primary claimant stakeholder is a proxy for primary objective, one would expect to
see differences in service provision based on type. There appear to be two significant differ-
ences in service provision by claimant type. All of the eighteen incubators with objectives that
target communities or creative sector entrepreneurs provide facilities—workspace and/or exhi-
bition and performance space. It is not surprising, given the economic growth and community
development such incubators seek, that a location for production, consumption, and exchange
is provided (see Pratt 2008). Conversely, only twelve of the twenty-four incubators targeting
artists and/or nonprofit arts organizations (including student artists) provide facilities. For these
incubators, the most common service provision is business training, whereas only half of the
incubators that target community development or creative sector entrepreneurs appear to offer this
service.
Funding, via grants or loans, is provided, with one exception (Arlington Arts), by incubators
that target artists, nonprofit organizations, and students. Grants and loans do not appear to be
provided by community development or creative enterprise incubators, at least not directly by the
incubator itself. As one would expect, only the for-profit incubator provides funding via equity
investment in for-profit creative enterprise start-ups.
Typology by Incubator Form
The second categorization of arts incubators is by the form of the incubator itself. Nationally,
the majority of small-business incubators are nonprofit organizations (NBIA 2102). Nonprofits
also constitute the majority of arts incubators: sixty percent are 501c3 corporations or programs
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

178 ESSIG
of 501c3 corporations. There is a larger proportion of government entities (twenty-one percent)
than in the small-business incubator universe writ large. Six arts incubators are city agencies or
programs of city agencies, one is a county program, and two are state agency programs. Four are
university incubators open to the development of professional artists and arts-based businesses,
with two additional university programs for students only.4Only one is a for-profit LLC.
Differences and similarities in service provision across organizational forms are not as clear
as are confluences across stakeholder groups. Individual artists are more likely to be targeted
by 501c3 corporations or programs of 501c3 corporations (fourteen) than other forms (two
state agencies, two city programs, one university program). As one would expect, state arts
agency programs (n =2) do not provide space. All but one of the government agency programs
provides business training. There is obvious alignment between the small group of university-run
incubator programs and the “student” claimant stakeholder group such that the student group
is served exclusively by university programs. Similarly, the incubator whose goal is to return
investment to its owner is the sole for-profit entity. Beyond these direct connections, there do not
appear to be correlations between the corporate form of the incubator and the services provided.
Thus, typology by corporate form does not seem to be a useful method of categorization. Further
research, however, may discover a link between corporate form and program funding that could
prove useful.
Statistical Analyses
I conducted two statistical tests to confirm or refute my observations of the relationships be-
tween claimant type or organizational form (the independent variables) and the incubator ser-
vices provided (the dependent variables). There are forty-three observations. In this relatively
small universe, binary logistic regression did not yield statistically significant results. However,
Pearson’s chi-squared does confirm the observations described earlier. For the null hypothesis
=provision of services is independent of claimant type, the null hypothesis can be rejected for
facilities (Pr =0.013), training (Pr =0.092), and fiscal sponsorship (Pr =0), indicating that
facilities, training, and fiscal sponsorship are related to claimant type. Recalling that the claimant
type is a proxy for the objective of which it is the target, one could say that provision of facilities,
training, and fiscal sponsorship appear to be associated with program objectives, while there does
not appear to be a statistically significant correlation between business services or funding and
program objectives.
Conducting the Pearson’s chi-squared test on the independent variable of incubator form
explains why the observed relationships are less direct than that of the relationship between
claimant stakeholder and service provision. None of the chi-squared values are statistically
significant at the ninety percent confidence level (Pr <0.10), although the training variable comes
close (Pr =0.115), indicating that there is some weak connection between the organizational
form of the incubator and provision of arts business training.
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
The arts incubator inventory and resulting typology provide a foundation for future research
and expose questions for future study. There appear to be some correlations between strategic
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

ARTS INCUBATORS: A TYPOLOGY 179
objectives and service provisions, as one would expect, but these relationships do not exist across
all incubator activities. Some of the correlations are predictable. For example, the alignment
between economic and community development goals and provision of space may reflect the
New Growth Theory (NGT) model of development espoused recently by Rushton (2013) and his
contributors: “NGT treats advances in growth-enhancing technology as a result of the conscious,
strategic decisions of individuals, firms, and governments to invest in the acquisition of skills and
knowledge and in potential innovation” (4). Arts incubators are one form of conscious, strategic
action to help grow communities on the NGT model.
This inventory and resulting typology are just a first step toward understanding arts incubators
as an organizational form and policy tool or even as a barometer of a changing arts ecosys-
tem. The topic provides fertile ground for correlational research. For example, was the Great
Recession a factor in the increased scope and diversity of arts incubation activities since the Arts
Incubator Alliance disbanded? What accounts for the longevity of some incubator programs such
as Arlington Arts, while others, such as Arts Office Lauderhill, appear to have ceased operation?
What role does the revenue mix or overall budget play in incubator longevity? How effective are
arts incubators for community economic development or as a tool for “creative placemaking?”
What factors support incubator success? The measurement of incubator success is of particular
interest to this author, whose future research will examine how arts incubators create value for
their claimant stakeholders, clarify who those stakeholders are, and how that value is assessed in
order to create a framework for evaluating arts incubator activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks to Dr. Stephani Etheridge Woodson for her feedback on an early draft of this
article and to Casey Boyd Swan for her assistance with the statistical analysis.
NOTES
1. “Virtual incubation” is defined by NBIA (2013) as “the delivery of incubation services solely through
electronic means” but may also include the provision of services to non-resident enterprises.
2. The snapshot concept is an important one as the landscape shifts continually as incubator programs are
initiated or cease operating.
3. Because of the wide variance in business forms and funding infrastructure for the arts between the U.S.
and other countries, only U.S. entities were considered.
4. The author is director of one of these two programs.
REFERENCES
Aernoudt, Rudy. 2004. “Incubators: Tool for Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics 23: 127–135.
Allen, David N., and Richard McCluskey. 1990. “Structure, Policy, Services, and Performance in the Business Incubator
Industry.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15 (2): 61–77.
Allen, David N., and Syedur Rahman. 1985. “Small Business Incubators: A Positive Environment for Entrepreneurship.”
Journal of Small Business Management 23 (3): 12–22.
Art Inkubator. “What is an Art Incubator?” Available at: http://www.artinkubator.com. Accessed May 30, 2013.
ArtServe. 2013. “Mission.” Available at: http://www.artserve.org/arts community/index.php
Bergek, Anna, and Charlotte Norman. 2008. “Incubator Best Practice: A Framework.” Technovation 28 (1): 20–28.
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014

180 ESSIG
Carayannis, Elias G., and Maximilian von Zedtwitz. 2005. “Architecting GloCal (Global–Local), Real-Virtual Incubator
Networks (G-RVINs) as Catalysts and Accelerators of Entrepreneurship in Transitioning and Developing Economies:
Lessons Learned and Best Practices from Current Development and Business Incubation Practices.” Technovation 25
(2): 95–110.
Carizzozo Works. 2013. “Art Incubator.” Available at: http://carrizozoworks.org/art-incubator/
Diaspora Vibe. 2013. “History.” Available at: http://diasporavibevirtualgallery.com/history/
Entrepreneur. “Business Incubators.” Available at: http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/business-incubator. Ac-
cessed August 1, 2013.
Essig, Linda. 2014. “Ownership, Failure, and Experience: Goals and Evaluation Metrics of University-based Arts Venture
Incubators.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3 (4): 117–135.
Fassin, Yves. 2009. “The Stakeholder Model Refined.” Journal of Business Ethics 84 (1): 113–135.
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. New York: HarperCollins College.
Gerl, Ellen. 2000. Incubating the Arts: Establishing a Program to Help Artists and Arts Organizations become Viable
Businesses. Athens, OH: NBIA Publications.
Grimaldi, Rosa, and Alessandro Grandi. 2005. “Business Incubators and New Venture Creation: An Assessment of
Incubating Models.” Technovation 25 (2): 111–121.
Hackett, Sean M., and David M. Dilts. 2004. “A Systematic Review of Business Incubation Research.” The Journal of
Technology Transfer 29 (1): 55–82.
Kahn, Mary. 1995. “An Introduction to Arts Incubators.” National Association of Local Arts Agencies Monographs 4 (3):
1–16.
Kaler, John. 2002. “Morality and Strategy in Stakeholder Identification.” Journal of Business Ethics 39 (1–2): 91–100.
NBIA. “What are Business Incubators?” Available at: http://www.nbia.org/resource library/faq/index.php. Accessed
August 1, 2013.
Peters, Lois, Mark Rice, and Malavika Sundararajan. 2004. “The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process.” The
Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (1): 83–91.
Phillips, Rhonda. 2004. “Artful Business: Using the Arts for Community Economic Development.” Community Devel-
opment Journal 39 (2): 112–122.
Pratt, Andy C. 2008. “Creative Cities: The Cultural Industries and the Creative Class.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B,
Human Geography 90 (2): 107–117.
Rushton, Michael. 2013. “Introduction.” In Creative Communities: Art Works in Economic Development, edited by
Michael Rushton. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Stone Mountain Arts Incubator. 2013. “SMART, Inc.” Available at: http://www.artstation.org/arts%20incubator.htm
Downloaded by [Arizona State University], [Linda Essig] at 09:01 21 August 2014