Socio-Human Structures, Schemas and (Meta)Cognitive Applications to Universities and Corporate Business Incubators (UBIs and CBIs)

Ademola Taiwo

doi:10.20944/preprints202605.1938.v1

Submitted:

08 May 2026

Posted:

28 May 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

This study expatiates on the entrepreneurial cognitive process, schema and interjection with an Adapted Strong Structuration Theory (MMSST) i.e., Mixed Methods Strong Structuration Theory based on established Social Cognitive theory using schemas, scripts, metacognition, frames and evocation model. Schemas and Entrepreneurial Meta-Cognitive composite processes based on units of analysis: individuals, teams, organizations and networks in UBIs and CBIs are expanded upon. The study proposes an integration of (Meta)Cognition in UBIs and CBIs with MMSST and also a framework that observes composite of different structures (knowledge, beliefs, learning, collaborations, co-creation) in performing entrepreneurial tasks, adapting to the environment or external conditions and during value co-creation. The core synopsis within this study is that socio-human structures (internal: habitus and conjectures) in MMSST emanates from schemas(cognitive) and are developed overtime based on higher-order cognition(meta-cognition) evoked via frames using evocation models. This study integrates and identifies schemas and meta cognition taking cognizance of environmental and behavioral patterns as it impacts UBIs and CBIs studies while being grounded in MMSST. The study contributes to the understanding of the roles of entrepreneurial cognition and meta-cognition in UBIs and CBI on value co-creation.

Keywords:

corporate business incubators(tion)

;

university business incubation(ubi)

;

schemas

;

meta(cognition)tive in entrepreneurship

;

neuroscience

Subject:

Business, Economics and Management - Business and Management

Introduction

The interjection of socio-human structural analysis based on continual interaction among actors (Greenhalgh and Stones, 2010; den Hond et al., 2012; Stones, 2017)within a typical ecosystem(Brown and Mason, 2017; Spigel, 2017), has facilitated the evolution and expansion of the initially proposed Gidden’s Structuration to SST(Strong Structuration Theory)(Stones, 2017), Temporality in SST(Makrygiannakis and Jack, 2018) and recently Mixed Method Strong Structuration Theory(MMSST)(Taiwo and Provodnikova, 2025). MMSST laid the foundation for not just the structural understanding using the QNS(Quadripartite Network System)(Jack and Kholeif, 2007; Greenhalgh and Stones, 2010; Jack, 2017) but also the continual measurement of agents or active actants during recursive relationships and how agents would behave during such interactions based on environmental (types), adaptation and how they would respond to subsequent external conditions in the future. In this vein, MMSST combines resilience development, adaptation, behavioral patterns of actors or active agents using TPB and PCT(Theory of Planned Behavior) and Personal Construct Theory based on Ajzen theoretical concepts(Ajzen, 1991, 2002; Bosnjak, Ajzen and Schmidt, 2020) and also MMDSNA (Mixed Methods Dynamic Social Network Analysis) to examine network evolution overtime using ERGM(exponential random graph model) or SAOM(Stochastic Actor Oriented Model) based measurement(Froehlich, Van Waes and Schäfer, 2020; Taiwo and Provodnikova, 2025). MMSST explicitly provides a composite overview and measurements of the human socio-structures, behavioral patterns and network evolution. However an important element and unit of analysis of cognitive and meta-cognitive added to the MMSST would further expatiate on the intrinsic reasons: why and how individuals develop the internal structures of ‘Habitus’ and Conjectures (how and why we do things the way we do it) and more importantly how agents involved in the recursive relationships overtime develop the intrinsic ‘structures’ of schemas in processing information and developing mental models(heuristics) while adapting to their environment or completing an entrepreneurial task. More cogently, the antecedents, development, evolution of schemas and meta(cognition) in different structures and their application to UBIs and CBIs studies on individual(entrepreneurs), teams (business units), organizations, networks levels of analysis will be examined.

The integration of psychology, sociology and neuroscience into entrepreneurship and innovation studies has facilitated a micro and intrinsic levels of analysis aiding vital explanation on how entrepreneurs’ knowledge building and mental models (schemas)are developed overtime. Schema describes how individual develop and process information while continually interacting with its environment. The uniqueness of each UBI or CBI(Ng et al., 2019; Kötting, 2020) necessitate the need to identify cognitive process deployed by individuals, teams, BUs (Business Units), organizations in completing entrepreneurial related tasks, during incubation process or when interacting with their immediate environment for shared knowledge and collaboration.

The aim of this research firstly is to expatiate on the cognitive, metacognitive processes in UBIs and CBIs and their relationships with socio human structures using MMSST. Secondly, this study would also examine a multi-dimensional framework and measurement of schema’s evolution overtime and meta-cognitive components in completing different entrepreneurial tasks in UBIs and CBIs. The study will build on the initial underpinnings of schemas in CBIs(Taiwo, 2026a) during co-creation and UBIs schema evolution (Taiwo, 2026b).

The following research questions are developed to guide the research study:

(a) How could schema and meta-cognition be integrated into MMSST?

(b) How could we observe the intrinsic level evolution of different schemas and meta(cognitive) characteristics of individuals, teams, organizations and networks overtime based on different entrepreneurial tasks in UBIs and value-co-creation in CBIs.

(c) How can neuroscience aid vital understanding of cognitive measurement during these entrepreneurial tasks (e.g., decision making, innovation capabilities in entrepreneurs).

Conceptual Framework Development:

The socio-cognitive theory provides the basis for us in explaining the cognitive concept in UBIs and CBIs i.e., the sum total of an individual behavior and its environmental makes up the behavioral pattern(overtime) (Bandura,1987). i.e., B = ∑ (p, e) where p is the personal behavior and e is the environment.

In deconstructing this statement and applying it to UBIs and CBIs, we would delineate the environment to CBIs and UBIs: i.e., what type of environment are UBIs and CBIs embedded in and how do the individuals(actors) (UBIs and CBIs actors) respond to the environmental dynamics overtime on a cognitive level. For UBIs, they are firmly embedded within RISs (Regional Innovation Systems) and EE (Entrepreneurial Ecosystems) and are characterized by infra support, research institute, the academia, firm competition, governmental regulations, policies and commercial and social rules, EE attributes (social, legal, infrastructure, economic etc.)(Cooke, 2001b; Brown and Mason, 2017; Spigel, 2017; Taiwo, 2024b). From a structural point of view, typical UBIs and their forms are faced with environmental conditions(external structures) through which they develop their internal structures for adaptation(Jack and Kholeif, 2007; Greenhalgh and Stones, 2010; Taiwo, 2022; Taiwo and Provodnikova, 2025). This study would utilize the MMSST(Mixed Method Strong Structuration Theory) and QNS(Quadripartite Network System)(Taiwo and Provodnikova, 2025) as shown in Figure 1a,b and Table 1 and Table 2 to deconstruct the internal structures of different UBI forms and how they align on the (meta)cognitive levels in performing different entrepreneurial tasks. CBIs environment are defined by the extent of assets and resources and how corporates actors assess them(Civera and Meoli,2024).Typical CBIs environment as munificent, embedded, holistic or dynamic i.e., the availability of critical resources, deficiency or flexibility in assessing environmental attributes and assets within their environment.

Figure 1a. Composite Framework for MMSST-MMDSNA with socio triggers and temporality (Source: Taiwo and Provodnikova,2025).

Figure 1b. proposed typical output for MMSST-MMDSNA (with Resilience and Adaptability, Personal Behavioral Theories (Ajzen’s TPB and PCT) and UBI’ EE, RIS, Cluster dynamics Source: (Taiwo and Provodnikova,2025).

The environment shapes the individual in gradually developing its ‘mental model’ by being ‘alert’ to the resources and assets that surrounds him thereby creating a ‘perception’ of utilizing the environmental assets and resources via his or her ‘intention’(entrepreneurial) in performing entrepreneurship based tasks.

Student entrepreneurs’ typically ‘leverage’ on their Universities ‘or Faculty pedigree in entrepreneurial studies or spinoffs or the UBI’ pedigree in successful incubation process or venturing. This explains why some Universities or UBIs are more successful than others: Examples include renowned Universities like MIT, Stanford, Babson College, SETSquared pedigree in successful startups spinoff over the years. Such environment aid students in developing faster entrepreneurial ‘mental models’ (alertness, intention) based information and the willingness to venture into entrepreneurship are higher compared to other Universities with low leverage in venturing, entrepreneurship or research pedigree. Due to this ‘leverage Schema’, entrepreneurs easily build knowledge and belief structures (Krueger Jr, 2003; Valliere, 2013)for entrepreneurial success. From UBI case studies, “leverage schemas” are also seen from Core R & D and Industry (e.g., LifeScience) UBI business models (Taiwo, 2026b) where some regions are known for LifeScience venturing and spinoffs than others due to the ‘historical heritage’(Cooke, 2001a, 2002, 2004; Taiwo, 2024a) associated with healthcare based activities (e.g., drug discovery, lifescience venturing activities, concentration of healthcare based firms and startups)

Such UBI Clusters are seen in Germany (Nürnberg-Erlangen), Switzerland (Zürich, Bern, Genf) MedTech Clusters, Boston 128( MIT, Stanford, Harvard and Boston Universities ) in the US, Kobe, Japan, Cambridge, UK and Uppsala, Sweden(Breznitz, O’Shea and Allen, 2008; Baraldi, Ingemansson and Launberg, 2014). Typical UBIs should examine their environment composition depending on the level of assets and resource availability and questions like: what ‘leverage schema do we possess or easily developed (due to our regional and ecosystem advantages) that facilitate startups creation and spinoffs. Leverage schemas enhance entrepreneurs’ cognitive behaviors (motivation and risk taking) overtime, however more empirical evidences are needed in explaining the relationships with innovation and opportunity recognition and exploitation overtime. A UBI environment with entrepreneurial ‘leverage’ (ease of startups funding, support for infrastructure, historical and industrial heritage) create availability of essential resources and assets enabling higher cognitive levels (meta-cognitive): collective knowledge and experience for making entrepreneurial decisions or completing entrepreneurial tasks (e.g., venture development, growth and opportunity recognition. Higher levels of awareness scripts(Corbett and Hmieleski, 2007) and entrepreneurial alertness to the environment and opportunities(Haynie et al., 2010; Valliere, 2013) Compared to an environment with less leverage, individuals will require more efforts in building their knowledge and belief structures for performing entrepreneurial tasks or venturing i.e., More learning activities and environmental scanning would be required in such environments to motivate and accentuate students’ based entrepreneurial activities till they develop’ habitual’ entrepreneurial mindsets on a higher cognition level and towards a collective internal structure of UBI or University known for successful UBI or entrepreneurial activities(Conjectures).

From Table 1 the Internal structure of Habitus and Conjectures from the QNS SST for UBIs could be segmented into four higher order metacognitive parts.

Based on these extracts from UBIs’ QNS and MMSST structures with their internal conjectures, we could make certain propositions that:

(i).: UBI’s Entrepreneurial mindset is a higher order cognitive process(meta-cognitive) comprising (self- efficacy (just do it), self-development competencies, perseverance risk- taking schemas and are required by UBIs entrepreneurs in developing the internal structure ‘habitus’
(ii).: UBI Entrepreneurs develop different cognitive processes, schemas or mental models in performing various entrepreneurial tasks e.g., self–efficacy, self-development, perseverance, motivation, risk-taking etc. during their course of studies and incubation process and these could be ’framed’ towards a higher order cognitive process of Entrepreneurial Mindset overtime ‘evoked’ via structures of knowledge and belief (what is known what is true and what is expected).
(iii).: Metacognitive levels of UBI Business Process development and change management are required on an organizational or business unit levels based on the cognitive levels and schemas of Opportunity Identification and Exploitation, need and demand analyses.
(iv).: Meta Cognitive levels are required for value creation and goal driven collaboration (i.e., regional collaboration, firm-cluster-university collaboration
(v).: Higher level order of ‘Leverage Schemas’ is developed from knowledge and belief structures framed by similar experiences in an environment based on industry sector historical heritages (e.g., Lifescience), University pedigree in research and ventures which enhances repeated patterns and experiences of successful startups spinoffs and UBI.

The words ‘frame’ and ‘evoke’ as indicated by Wood et al. (2018) are cognitive arrangements of schemas ‘publicly’ and activating framed schemas via evocation models. This implies that several frames can exist consisting of different schemas that could make up the internal structures of Conjectures and Habitus. For instance, as explained above a frame of Entrepreneurial Mindset is defined comprising of other schemas and part of the internal conjecture. We could define another frame as comprising of Business Processes (Conjecture of ‘how we do things’- transposable skills’ a higher order meta cognitive schema comprising of (rigorous startups selection, fund sourcing and generation) etc.

An algorithm could also be developed for the higher order schemas as shown in Figure 2:

For CBIs structures and Schemas, we would take a clue and guide from cognitive applications using scripts via roles, events and CBIs (Corbett and Hmieleski, 2007; MARTINS, L., RINDOVA, and GREENBAUM, 2015; Taiwo, 2026a). Figure 3 and Figure 4 and Table 3 gives the breakdown of the CBI QNS SST,CBI multi-level Schema with algorithm and CBI metacognitive categories based on the QNS SST.

Discussions

Structures, Schemas and Meta Cognitive Schemas in UBIs:

Schema Integration with MMSST and measurement overtime

In this study, we have related structures from SST, QNS, MMSST based on Bandura’s Social Cognitive theory to establish fundamental conceptual framework for developing metacognitive based theories and concepts in UBI: The propositions and assertions made are that specific schemas are required at the various UBI units of analysis and these schemas are developed from the intrinsic (mental models) and extrinsic factors environment i.e., RIS, EE). An important inference is also the higher order individual schema of entrepreneurial mindset which we postulated as comprising of lower order cognitive schemas of self-efficacy, self-development, just-do-it mentality, risk-taking, perseverance and motivation(Taiwo, 2025) which are likened to the entrepreneurial syndrome and mental models as explained by Mathews (2008). Entrepreneurial Syndrome explains the reason some individuals have extensive capacity and capabilities for entrepreneurial activities or why some individuals are entrepreneurs and other are not. These include: locus of action and control, risk taking, achievement, satisfaction. These entrepreneurial syndromes can be activated or ‘called into action’ via ‘mental models’ such as recombination, inductive and deductive reasoning and probability. Entrepreneurs employ these mental models in making (objectives) decisions with their intrinsic entrepreneurial syndrome in completing entrepreneurial based tasks(Mathews, 2008; Valliere, 2013). Entrepreneurs continually activate these syndromes these syndromes based on their choice of mental model via interactions with their environment, self and others using different schemas.

An essential part of this study is to develop an aggregated framework (as shown in Table 4) using combination of meta(cognitive) structures and their related components in analyzing and assessing how entrepreneurs develop schemas (lower and higher orders overtime based on the external conditions, while also considering how they adjust their schemas or change schemas via analog reasoning and conceptual combination overtime. This brings an important concept to the study of UBI schemas i.e., Cognitive Change Management in Entrepreneurial tasks or in this case (Meta) Cognitive Change Management in UBIs. This instantiates the need for studies on how schemas are developed, enriched, matured and changed overtime across UBI entrepreneurial life cycle. This would also include how schemas are developed via (assimilation, unitization, deconstruction, activation and cognitive generation and formed overtime. The concept of (meta)cognition aids the understanding of how knowledge and belief structures required, activated or called to action in making alternative solutions, strategies or alignment when completing entrepreneurial tasks like opportunity identification, recognition, venture development and growth. Valliere(2013) examined meta cognition of entrepreneurial mindset as based on the level of the entrepreneur’s motivation and the awareness of its environment coupled with the degree of its knowledge and experience structures( tools, people and strategy) which is activated during typical entrepreneurial tasks. The innate ability to also analyze feedback mechanism based on entrepreneurial tasks outcomes and to make changes and modifications in decision making or task completion based on its external condition or environment aids successful task completion. In this vein it is possible to assess the development, richness and maturity of the UBIs and CBIs based schemas at interval ‘t’ or overtime and how they mature and prime into high order (meta)cognitive schema based on their richness, association and primeness i.e., how potent an individual or entrepreneur can process information to make decisions based on his or her knowledge and belief structures or how rich his mental model is to successfully perform studies that entrepreneurial tasks.

The schema ‘primeness’ illustrates schema maturity overtime. These schemas form the basic foundation for the socio-human structure as also postulated by Sewell(1992) as Giddens’s structures are composed of schemas and resources which are continually deployed based on the recursive relationships among the actors(Jones and Karsten, 2008; den Hond et al., 2012; Stones, 2017). The schema dimensions, antecedents and development are all modelled (framed) into the SST internal structure as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 to form how agents respond to external conditions and structures overtime based on both transposable skills and habitus. In this case we could infer that typical high-order mental models of entrepreneurial competencies, self-efficacy, motivation, alertness, risk-taking, perseverance is framed into Entrepreneurial Mindset which is required to successfully ideate, innovate, develop prototypes, commence a sustainable venture, or successfully complete an entrepreneurial task. In this vein, the author corroborates studies that entrepreneurs( UBIs) require higher order schema for successful task completion ( incubation process) and should be measured overtime and could be combined with leverage schema( regional or local-University) (Haynie et al., 2010; Valliere, 2013). Leverage Schema is also herein inferred as a higher-order (Meta)Cognitive Schema composing lower schemas of entrepreneur pedigree (background and past experience), University pedigree in research and spinoffs, regional pedigree in healthcare etc. The leverage schema lower order forms an ‘historic’ pattern thereby enhancing the development of the belief structure of the local entrepreneur on the regional competencies in facilitation venturing. This directly builds the knowledge structure of individual entrepreneur in what is known in the locality or region(pedigree) that could facilitate venturing, thereby developing a belief structure of what is true and expected (e.g., historical heritage in healthcare).

On the organizational levels, higher order business process development and changes as well as opportunity recognition schemas are required. Generally, studies in process oriented based schemas still remains a ‘black box’(Corbett and Hmieleski, 2007) as fundamental conceptual explanations of how schemas are developed in process oriented tasks are still scanty. More theoretical frameworks are still required while been grounded in empirical data. Although decision making by managers in process oriented schemas are well studied, still absent is how higher order metacognitive schemas impact managerial decision making. Applying this to UBI studies, we could delineate the typical incubation process into specific minute tasks required to complete the incubation process and how managers make decision and strategize at each stage of the incubation process. In addition to these, the ‘scripts’ used at specific event in the task completion should also be studied(Corbett and Hmieleski, 2007; Taiwo, 2026b).

Corbett and Hmieleski (2007) examined different types of scripts( schemas applied during specific events) used in specific events (awareness, willingness and ability) based on specific roles and event. Applying this to UBI studies, we could also assert that specific scripts are required to complete Project and Idea selection tasks by UBI managers. This script would include ‘Ability’ selection criteria definition’ i.e., the ability to define required metrics for startups selection. This ‘ability’ script (selection criteria definition) is both strategic and process oriented. Strategic in the sense of defining criteria based on the UBI’ norms, signification (mission and vision) vis-à-vis the success of the UBI as well as stakeholder’s satisfaction outcomes. It’s also process oriented because it involves several tasks and events with decision making that culminates to the final outcome i.e., successfully selecting ‘potential startups’. Therefore, this process ‘selection criteria definition is a crucial aspect of the UBI internal strategy as it would govern and determine subsequent schematic, structural impact on the UBI. As explained earlier, business processes development and changes represents high-order cognitive schemas to facilitate the completion of the sets of tasks. In this vein, startups selection criteria based on the UBI normative expressions, signification and legitimation requires the awareness of the immediate startup ecosystem environment coupled with the UBI motivation and that of the would be entrepreneurs in assessing the fit and alignment between them(Jack and Kholeif, 2007; Bruneel et al., 2012). The level of awareness of the UBI to the immediate opportunity around them while selecting the right startups to access such opportunities via their tailored knowledge, learning and experiential development through the UBI incubation process via mentoring and consulting and shared experience and shared experiences from alumni and regional entrepreneurs via the University network. This directly builds the knowledge and experience schemas of the UBI managers based on past selection processes in making shared strategic decisions in selecting the right startups that meets the requirements. Using the metacognitive feedback, the UBIs continuously learn from the previous outcomes of their selection decisions from startups successes and outcomes such as Survivability, performance after exiting from the UBI (Post incubation). The UBI can then alter and refine their selection process and strategies finding alternative solutions where required and needed.

Meta Cognitive Schemas of Goal Driven Value Co-creation and Collaboration in UBIs

From the SST QNS analysis, UBIs collaborate regionally for open innovation with firms, negotiating or sourcing for startups funding with the regional national governments and during national competition as seen in the life science cases(Cooke, 2013; Taiwo, 2024a). These collaborations are goal driven and require social and relational schemas based on the symmetry of relationships(Baldwin, 1999). Collaborations also occur for value co-creation with firms, regions and other BI forms e.g., CBIs. In this cases, ’fit’ and ‘alignment’ with one another are critical elements of successful collaboration (Cooper, Hamel and Connaughton, 2012; Wachira, Ngugi and Otieno, 2016; Redondo and Camarero, 2017).

Cooper, Hamel and Connaughton (2012) expatiated on vital dimensions and components of inter-organizations relationships(IoR) as it relates to UBIs. These dimensions include: cognitive (way of life or manner or thoughts understanding of oneself and interaction with others on the way we think), structural (willingness to align and fit into a formation or structure (organizational or firm’ structure) and relational (need for interaction). These dimensions substantiate the conceptual formation for developing (meta)cognitive explanations for UBIs (Goal driven) collaborations and value co-creation as these three levels of relationship aid the development of UBIs inter-relationships efforts via collaboration and value-driven activities. This study has corroborated and contributed in further understanding the cognitive composition of such inter-relationships via the introduction of schemas and its higher order (metacognitive schemas). A critical aspect of interaction and relationship is the understanding of self, the individual’s perception of his environment or (worldview) a based on the ‘self-schema’ and the need for interacting with others during specific events using the interacting schema and inter-relationship scripts (Baldwin, 1999) which are called to play based on typical events. These scripts and schemas cumulates into structures relational schemas which are based on cognitive structures of past events and experiences during interaction with others and perceptions or one’s view of the world. The author further explained that relational schemas are developed based on knowledge structures of declarative (which could be episodic: -recurring patterns; or semantic abstract view based on past experiences) and procedural defined by skills and rules during interaction or relationship this occurs more like ‘if then statements’ of relationships. For example, “if we could make partnership or collaboration with ‘UBI A’ based on our fit and rules of collaboration (assignment on resources by parties, project facilitations), then we would both triple our yearly efforts”. We could then assert that collaborative goal driven relationship is dependent on the intrinsic schemas of the UBIs (individual self-schema, relational schema, declarative and procedural knowledge structures which also relates to the normative expressions, legitimation of the UBI based on SST).

On the Team or Business unit levels, team agreement and composition schemas are critical (Susan Mohammed, Richard and Rentsch, 2008) Team agreement defines how the team perform their task using individuals and team shared ability schema and scripts based on their roles scripts(Corbett and Hmieleski, 2007). The team or Business unit(BU) agreement also defines how they do things, achieve their desired results, team’s performance, set of tools and processes deployed in completing the tasks. Figure 6 shows the combined level of the collaboration and goal-driven schemas and Figure 7 the metacognitive process integration with MMSST QNS.

Structures, Schemas and Meta Cognitive Schemas in CBIs

A CBI’s entrepreneurial mindset climate and competence development is highly dependent on the Patent’s Company’s Entrepreneurial Orientation(EO). While each entrepreneur involved in the Corporate incubation process must have a level of fit and entrepreneurial cognitive abilities, the PC’s strategy towards entrepreneurship, sets the pace for a buoyant entrepreneurial climate and mindset in the CBI. Generally, organizational EO dimension include higher order entrepreneurial cognitive traits such as Proactiveness, Risk taking, Autonomy, Innovativeness and Competitiveness(Zahra, Randerson and Fayolle, 2013) and these cumulates and defines the PC’s entrepreneurial climate. Generally EO has been inferred to directly impact organizations’ network capabilities(NC)(Walter, Auer and Ritter, 2006),strategic orientation vis-à-vis towards the development dynamic capabilities schemas required for continual interaction and scanning the environment for opportunities and exploiting the thereafter(Randerson, Degeorge and Fayolle, 2016). Furthermore, Dess and Lumpkin(2005) highlighted the importance of EO in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship and the impact on venturing activities like corporate incubation. In this vein, we could infer that metacognition based entrepreneurial behaviors and processes like Entrepreneurial mindset, Innovation and Knowledge collaboration, Successful and Sustainable CBIs startups creation and outcomes, CBIs’ Operations and Strategy, Managerial Decision Making and Employee branding exist and further empirical analysis are required to understand the relative correlation with Entrepreneurial Orientation(EO).

From the initial CBI Structural analyses, Entrepreneurial Mindset is related to competency development and PC (parent company’s and CBI’s’ entrepreneurial climate. CBI’s entrepreneurial climate is based on the strategic orientation of the PC, its market positioning, CBI’ Business model or typology (Dess and Lumpkin, 2005; Zahra, Randerson and Fayolle, 2013). The strategic and entrepreneurial orientation directly impact the Entrepreneurial climate, the BM and dictates the mode and dynamisms of CBI’ operations. This is inline with Becker and Gassmann (2006b, 2006a) illustration of typical CBI typology( fast incubator, leverage, market) with their resources and operations. Metacognitive processes have illustrated as higher order framework for information processing, strategy and knowledge development based on the available information and the continual interaction of the individual with his environment(Valliere, 2013). The Metacognitive dimensions of knowledge, experience, environment, motivation, awareness strategy, feedback mechanisms via monitoring and control of process for decision making and goal orientation(Cho, 2026). Based on the CBI Business model selected, competency development by CBI entrepreneurs is dependent on the knowledge and learning structures and schemas of the PC and the CBI(Susan Mohammed, Richard and Rentsch, 2008) with dependence on the PC’s and CBI’s EO for innovativeness. In this vein, the Metacognitive process of Innovation and knowledge for collaboration and contextual development within the CBI must be knitted into the CBIs ‘innovation, knowledge and learning’ milieu and towards the development of the cognitive knowledge and belief structures of the CBI. Past experience and knowledge developed from collaboration with firms and the academia during incubation process in forming new partnerships also correlates innovativeness in CBIs. However, this is dependent on the dominant schema (generic or specific schema for industry experience) of the entrepreneurs involved in the CBI. Entrepreneurs with specific schema on industry are more tuned to look beyond the ordinary, question the status quo and unveil deeper insight into new ways of performing typical entrepreneurial based tasks, running a service, creating new ventures or designing a product. Research questions should also be aimed at unravelling the degree of specific and generic schemas used in creating Unicorn startups and typical startups. Unicorn startups creation is seen as correlated maxim towards successful and sustainable startups formation. However, the bigger contextual aim should be what metacognitive processes enhance the formation of Unicorn startups? A comparative longitudinal studies could be done to understudy past and present CBIs, their Unicorn startups to understand the traits of such entrepreneurs i.e., are their similar unique trends in the metacognitive processes of Unicorn startups formation from a CBI to another and across different industries and ecosystem. How do such CBIs and Entrepreneurs access the resources, assets and capabilities within the environment in creating such Unicorn startups? What schemas by the parent company(PC), CBI are required together with these in forming these Unicorn startups? Answers to these questions would aid the operational dynamisms and strategic decision making of Unicorn startups.

Further investigation into the decision making processes(metacognitive) of middle, senior or CXO executives would also aid more understanding of the Unicorn startups creation in CBIs as well as how the EO of ‘competitiveness’, ‘proactiveness’ impact decision making in Unicorn startups creation and outcomes? What difference exist in the entrepreneurial climate of Unicorn startups and typical startups in CBIs and how do their entrepreneurial mindset and climate differ overtime? How do they continually build internal structures(habitus) that makes them to sustain their Startups overtime? Figure 8 shows the higher order metacognitive integration with QNS MMSST.

Conclusion

This study has provided an initial conceptual framework for identifying cognitive, metacognitive and schemas in UBIs and CBIs including how they aggregate towards the internal structure of SST QNS formation. While this study has identified schemas and both cognitive and structural levels and schemas with core metacognitive processes, gaps still exist in understanding inter-relational schemas among UBIs and forms of BIs e.g., CBIs and Regional Clusters. It can be concluded from both UBI and CBI internal structures that Entrepreneurial Mindset is a higher order Cognitive process which for UBI consist of risk taking, perseverance, ‘just-do-it mentality’(self-efficacy), self-development, perseverance, innovation)) while for CBIs, competency development and entrepreneurial climate with the PC’ Entrepreneurial Orientation(EO) aggregates into Entrepreneurial Mindset for CBIs. EO’s dimensions of risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and autonomy plays an important role in the metacognitive lifecycle of the CBI.

For UBIs, cognitive business process development and change management are required on the operational level based on cognitive process of opportunity identification and exploitation, need and demand analyses, rigorous selection criteria, business transformation agreement and policies on venture formation, fund sourcing and generation. Based on the Metacognitive processes (Valliere, 2013; Cho, 2026) discussed in this study, opportunity identification and need and demand analysis are the core metacognitive foundational processes that forms the knowledge and belief structures. These processes create an understanding on the UBI environment and subsequently enables the entrepreneur and UBI in positioning themselves for the goal oriented ‘rigorous startups selection process’. This aids the definition of the criteria for startups selection together with the agreement and venture policy formation to monitor, guide and control the business incubation processes, the change management is assigned based on feedback from the monitoring and controlling mechanism and thus the UBI could refine its opportunity identification and exploitation based on its grounded knowledge from market and need analysis.

Applying this metacognitive process to CBIs, based on this study, sustainable and successful Unicorn startups exist with operations and strategy efficiency and dynamisms as cognitive process. CBIs acquire knowledge and experiences using the innovation and knowledge metacognition (context and collaborations) process with academia, firms and regional clusters. The PC’s fit and alignment schema with EO is also key to developing and sustaining startups’ outcomes and employee branding. Strategic coordination cognitive schema combined with managerial decision making is used as monitoring and control (feedback mechanism) and startups’ outcomes as the metacognitive process of goal orientation. While this initial study as broadened the Business Incubation(BI) community (UBI and CBI) exposure to cognitive and metacognitive processes applications to Business Incubation studies, further grounding of conceptual studies of metacognitive processes for different BI phases and stages are still opened. More empirical data and case studies will also substantiate the initial concepts of this study while grounding them in data.

Another important area is the application of neuroscience to aid this study especially during innovation and entrepreneurial tasks completion. Neuroscience would aid the understanding of entrepreneur’ behavior during the metacognitive processes discussed above. How strategic and operational efficiencies of CBIs are enhanced for sustainable startups and successful outcomes via managerial decision making using neuroscience could enhance further understanding of the typical entrepreneurial task and the impact of managerial decision at each stage of the metacognitive process.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991) “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), pp. 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002) “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1,” Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), pp. 665–683.
Baldwin, M.W. (1999) “Relational schemas,” The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization [Preprint].
Baraldi, E., Ingemansson, M. and Launberg, A. (2014) “Controlling the commercialisation of science across inter-organisational borders: Four cases from two major Swedish universities,” Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), pp. 382–391.
Becker, B. and Gassmann, O. (2006a) “Corporate incubators: Industrial R&D and what universities can learn from them,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, pp. 469–483.
Becker, B. and Gassmann, O. (2006b) “Gaining leverage effects from knowledge modes within corporate incubators,” R&d Management, 36(1), pp. 1–16.
Bosnjak, M., Ajzen, I. and Schmidt, P. (2020) “The theory of planned behavior: Selected recent advances and applications,” Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), p. 352.
Breznitz, S.M., O’Shea, R.P. and Allen, T.J. (2008) “University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters,” Journal of product innovation management, 25(2), pp. 129–142.
Brown, R. and Mason, C. (2017) “Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems,” Small business economics, 49, pp. 11–30.
Bruneel, J. et al. (2012) “The Evolution of Business Incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations,” Technovation, 32(2), pp. 110–121.
Cho, Y.S. (2026) “The Impact of metacognition on Entrepreneurial Orientation(EO),” University of Texas,Pan American, College of Business Administration [Preprint].
Civera, A. and Meoli, M. (2024) “Corporate entrepreneurship strategy in universities: Emerging leadership in austerity time,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 49(6), pp. 2080–2103.
Cooke, P. (2001a) “Biotechnology Clusters in the UK: Lessons from Localisation in the Commercialisation of Science,” Small business economics, 17, pp. 43–59.
Cooke, P. (2001b) “Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy,” Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), pp. 945–974.
Cooke, P. (2002) “Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), pp. 133–145.
Cooke, P. (2004) “The molecular biology revolution and the rise of bioscience megacentres in North America and Europe,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 22(2), pp. 161–177.
Cooke, P. (2013) “Life sciences clusters and regional science policy,” in Clusters in Urban and Regional Development. Routledge, pp. 143–161.
Cooper, C.E., Hamel, S.A. and Connaughton, S.L. (2012) “Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator,” The Journal of technology transfer, 37(4), pp. 433–453.
Corbett, A.C. and Hmieleski, K.M. (2007) “The conflicting cognitions of corporate entrepreneurs,” Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(1), pp. 103–121.
Dess, G.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2005) “The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship,” Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), pp. 147–156.
Froehlich, D.E., Van Waes, S. and Schäfer, H. (2020) “Linking quantitative and qualitative network approaches: A review of mixed methods social network analysis in education research,” Review of research in education, 44(1), pp. 244–268.
Greenhalgh, T. and Stones, R. (2010) “Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory,” Social science & medicine, 70(9), pp. 1285–1294.
Haynie, M.J. et al. (2010) “A Situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset,” Journal of Business Venturing, 25, pp. 217–229. Available at: http://10.1016/jbusvent.2008.10.001.
den Hond, F. et al. (2012) “Giddens à la Carte? Appraising empirical applications of Structuration Theory in management and organization studies,” Journal of Political Power, 5(2), pp. 239–264.
Jack, L. (2017) “Strong structuration theory and management accounting research,” Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, pp. 211–223.
Jack, L. and Kholeif, A. (2007) “Introducing strong structuration theory for informing qualitative case studies in organization, management and accounting research,” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal [Preprint].
Jones, M.R. and Karsten, H. (2008) “Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research,” MIS quarterly, pp. 127–157.
Kötting, M. (2020) “Corporate incubators as knowledge brokers between business units and ventures: a systematic review and avenues for future research,” European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), pp. 474–499.
Krueger Jr, N.F. (2003) “The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship,” in Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction. Springer, pp. 105–140.
Makrygiannakis, G. and Jack, L. (2018) “Designing a conceptual methodology for structuration research,” Meditari Accountancy Research [Preprint].
MARTINS, L., L., RINDOVA, V.P. and GREENBAUM, B.E. (2015) “UNLOCKING THE HIDDEN VALUE OF CONCEPTS:A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION.,” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal [Preprint].
Mathews, J. (2008) “Entrepreneurial process: A personalistic-cognitive platform model,” Vikalpa, 33(3), pp. 17–34.
Ng, B.-K. et al. (2019) “University incubation system for research commercialisation: the case of Taiwan and Malaysia,” Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), pp. 465–485.
Randerson, K., Degeorge, J.-M. and Fayolle, A. (2016) “Entrepreneurial opportunities: how do cognitive styles and logics of action fit in?,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 27(1), pp. 19–39.
Redondo, M. and Camarero, C. (2017) “Dominant logics and the manager’s role in university business incubators,” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing [Preprint].
“s11365-020-00646-1” (no date).
Sewell, W.H. (1992) “A Theory of Structure: Duality ,Agency and Transformation,” American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), pp. 1–29. Available at: http://jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.
Spigel, B. (2017) “The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems,” Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 41(1), pp. 49–72.
Stones, R. (2017) Structuration theory. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Susan Mohammed, Richard, K. and Rentsch, J.R. (2008) “The Meausrement of Team Mental Models:We have no shared Schema,” Organizational Research Methods, 3. Available at: https://orm.sagepub.com/cgl/content/refs/3/2/123.
Taiwo, A. (2022) “STRONG STRUCTURATION THEORY APPLIED TO UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND A MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS USING INTEGRATIVE REVIEW,” Global journal of Business and Integral Security [Preprint].
Taiwo, A. (2024a) “A MIXED METHOD GROUNDED THEORY (MM-GT) WITH INTELLIGENT GIS AND MACHINE LEARNING APPROACH TO UNIVERSITY BASED BIOTECH BUSINESS INCUBATORS (UBBI) CLUSTERS: A STRONG STRUCTURATION AND SPATIAL AGGLOMERATION VIEW,” Global journal of Business and Integral Security, 1(2).
Taiwo, A. (2024b) “MACHINE AND DEEP LEARNING MODELING OF UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATORS (UBI) DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES WITH THEIR ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES AND VALUE CREATION: A MIXED METHOD STUDY,” Global journal of Business and Integral Security, 1(2).
Taiwo, A. (2026a) “Corporate Business Incubators(CBIs) value co-creation with UBIs: A Meta-Model and Integrative Review Approach,” Preprints MDPI [Preprint]. [CrossRef]
Taiwo, A. (2026b) “Emergence of new University Business Incubators’(UBIs) Business Models(BMs): A Redefinition and Future Research Agenda.” MDPI, Preprints. Available at: . [CrossRef]
Taiwo, A. and Provodnikova, A. (2025) “A Proposed Mixed Methods Strong Structuration Theory(SST) with Dynamic Social Network Analysis(DSNA): A myth to be unraveled?,” Preprints [Preprint]. Available at: . [CrossRef]
Valliere, D. (2013) “Towards a schematic theory of entrepreneurial alertness,” Journal of business venturing, 28(3), pp. 430–442.
Wachira, K., Ngugi, P. and Otieno, Rr.O. (2016) “Role of Social Networks in University Based Business Incubators in Promoting Entrepreneurship Growth in Kenya.”.
Walter, A., Auer, M. and Ritter, T. (2006) “The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance,” Journal of business venturing, 21(4), pp. 541–567.
Wood, M.L. et al. (2018) “Schemas and Frames,” American Sociological Association, 36(3), pp. 244–261.
Zahra, S.A., Randerson, K. and Fayolle, A. (2013) “Part I: The Evolution and Contribution of Corporate Entrepreneurship Research,” Management, 16(4), pp. 357–432.

Figure 2. Algorithm for UBIs Cognitive and Metacognitive Schemas (Source: A Taiwo, 2026).

Figure 3. QNS SST for CBIs (Source: Taiwo, 2026b).

Figure 4. Multi-level schema proposition for CBIs based on Figure 3 Internal Structure (Source: Taiwo,2026).

Figure 5. UBI’ Team and Individual Levels Cognitive and meta cognitive schema.

Figure 6. Deconstructing UBIs Collaboration and Co-creation levels (Cognitive, Structural and Social) Adapted by the author.

Figure 7. UBI Cognitive & Metacognitive processes with schemas integration to MMSST QNS (Source: Author).

Figure 8. CBI Cognitive & Metacognitive processes with schemas integration to MMSST QNS (Source: Author).

Table 1. QNS SST for UBIs Socio-Human Structures (Source: Author).

	UBI(Traditional)	ESABIC	MedTech
External	Need for Fund Generation. Quest for Internal Workflow and Process transformation	Need for Co-production and co-facilitation via Open Innovation. Adjustment in Incubation Process due to Disruption. Upstream segment Venturing via collaboration with other Regional partners.	Synergy development for innovation platform, agreement for joint projects creation Need for Cluster formation Data Process Management.
Internal	Just do it mentality Self-development capacities Capable Human Resource Entrepreneurial mind-set development among students	Motivation & Entrepreneurial Mindset development for student entrepreneurs Perseverance in the quest for Business and Start-ups Sustainability(H) ESA Agreements and Policies on venture formation(C) Experience in Space Based Business (C, H) Leverage on Robust Space Based Ecosystem	University Pedigree in MedTech spinoffs Regional Prowess in MedTech Leverage on University and Regional MedTech Pedigree MedTech MNCs and local firm presence
Actants	Venture Champion(Prof.), Regional Government	VCs, ESA, Regional Collaboration, other Univ.	MNCs, regional start-ups, Universities

Outcomes	Discussions for funding sourcing Quest for UBI re-organization Quest for UBI team knowledge development and process improvement Performance indices not met Human capital restructuring- need for staffing and resourcing	Venture creations & Spinoffs Partnership with Trans-regional	Best MedTech Cluster in the country. Continual collaborative MedTech projects and Idea Commercialization Partnerships with top Universities for MedTech Spinoffs, projects and idea Commercialization

Table 2. Deconstructing UBI Internal Structures (Habitus and Conjectures) into Cognitive and Meta Cognitive Schemas (Source: Taiwo 2024:2025).

HIGHER ORDER COGNITIVE SCHEMA(METACOGNITIVE SCHEMA) of UBIs BASED ON A MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS:
ENTREPRENEUR MINDSET (Entrepreneurs)	BUSINESS PROCESS DEVELOPMENT & CHANGES(UBI)	LEVERAGE SCHEMA (UBI)Networks	COLLABORATION (GOAL DRIVEN) & VALUECO-CREATION ( UBI Networks)
Just do it mentality	Agreements and policies on venture formation	University Pedigree in MedTech spinoffs	Collaboration with different segments in the value chain
Self-development capacities	Sectorial(Industry) Business Experience	Regional Prowess in MedTech	Firm-Cluster-University Collaborations
Motivation & Entrepreneurial Mindset development for student entrepreneurs	Business Workflow Process changes	Leverage on University and Regional MedTech Pedigree	Regional Competition Participation
Perseverance in the quest for Business and Start-ups Sustainability(H)	Market demand & Need Analysis	MedTech MNCs and local firm presence	Value Co-creation
Entrepreneurial Mindset (high cognitive order)**	Rigorous selection criteria	Leverage on Space Based Ecosystem

Table 3. Deconstructing CBIs Internal Structures into Cognitive & Schemas into CBI Internal Structures.

Higher Order- Metacognitive CBI Schemas
Entrepreneurial Mindset	Innovation & Knowledge from CBI Collaboration perspectives	Successful & Sustainable Venturing	CBI Operations & Strategy	Managerial Decision making
Competencies development	Innovation & knowledge context	Successful exit path	Operational efficiency	Employee branding
Entrepreneurial Climate	Innovative Collaboration (academia)	Successful Unicorn startups creation(process)	Process dynamisms
		Unicorn startups created(outcome	Operational & strategic coordination
			Strategic focus & alignment
			Organizational Strategy(ambidextrous or dexterous)

Table 4. Integrated Framework for UBI & CBI (Meta)Cognitive Schema measurement overtime.

Entrepreneurial Tasks (UBIs and CBIs)	Entrepreneurial Syndrome & mental models	Schemas Antecedents, Development, Dimensions, knowledge & belief structures	Schemas in MMSST	Social, Relational Schemas (Declarative Procedural structures	Change Mgt. with causation & effectuation; Cognitive Generation (AR,CC)	Adaptive Cognitive (Meta Cognitive)	Metacognitive Schema (5 layers);	Cognitive measurements & Neuroscience Applications (PF,MDS,IECM,TBCM)
-Opportunity Identification & recognition;-Competencies Development, -Just do it mentality
Entrepreneurial mindset,-risk taking,-perseverance
Decision Making
Unicorn startups creation
Goal Driven Collaboration & Value Co-creation
Entrepreneurial Climate
Sustainable Tech Development & Venturing
Operational Efficiency, Business transformation
Successful Exit, Successful Unicorn Startups created(creation)
Employee Branding

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.