Browse by title
Dafna Kariv, Harry Matlay and Alain Fayolle
Projections for coming entrepreneurial trends predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will be a thriving area for innovation; the evolution of the Internet of things will have more impact on the economy; the digital twin will take on vast importance, and Blockchain technology promises to change applications in government, healthcare, content distribution, and the supply chain (Cearley et al., 2017; Armstrong, 2018). These innovations, among other emerging entrepreneurial endeavors, will result in vast market disruption and innovation-driven growth; in Bower and Christensen’s (1995) terms, these trends encompass ‘disruptive innovation’. While the entrepreneurial landscape is fraught with constant bursts of innovation that reciprocally propel development of progressive modes of production, technology and business dynamics, entrepreneurship education (EE) does not reflect these innovations. The expectation is that EE will provide the relevant entrepreneurial-driven knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs), along with agile, creative mindsets and other psychological aspects (for example, self-effacement, motivation, intentions) to enable the implementation of such innovations into a viable, entrepreneurial business. However, research shows that EE for adult entrepreneurs still pursues conservative models, rather than forward-looking ones. This discrepancy between entrepreneurship and EE is echoed throughout the program types: the market is witnessing a gigantic outpouring of enabling systems (Matlay, 2006, 2008; Politis, 2005; Winkler et al., 2018), such as incubators, accelerators, academic programs for entrepreneurs, co-working spaces, corporate-based innovation centers, impact hubs, scaling accelerators, and digital accelerators, among others, but this substantial flux brings with it the question of relevant preparation for the entrepreneurial journey. The massively growing number of programs seems confusing to the learner-entrepreneurs, who need to determine which program will fit their needs as well as those of their stakeholders (Bischoff et al., 2018; Kariv et al., 2018; Steiner et al., 2018). Taken together, while entrepreneurship is characterized by vast innovation and boosted developments, the consequent implementation performance, which is attained through EE, is lagging behind due to the existing conventional EE modalities. These incongruities are the impetus for this book’s undertaking: to bring fresh views and perspectives on these prevailing gaps by illustrating innovative pedagogies and innovative programs through research studies, springing from an array of academic approaches, from various countries and various entrepreneurship programs. Specifically, this book aims to bridge some of the existing and evolving gaps between the entrepreneurship landscape and EE, to introduce a ‘disruptive innovation’-based look into EE, thus providing the groundwork for a better, more vigorous fit between the learners’ needs and EE focuses. This book offers new concepts and cases embodying EE and entrepreneurship learning (EL) in different countries, thereby covering a wide range of educational undertakings for entrepreneurs. The book aims to provide convergent, rather than divergent, perspectives on EE and EL. It sets out to deliver a constructive and focused research and learning agenda that closely matches the education and learning needs of nascent entrepreneurs and the corresponding programs that are being offered at all levels of the educational system.
Jill Kickul, Lisa Gundry, Jacqueline Orr and Mark Griffiths
Social Entrepreneurship is an emerging and rapidly changing field that examines the practice of identifying, starting and growing successful mission-driven for-profit and nonprofit ventures, that is, organizations that strive to advance social change through innovative solutions. For educators teaching in this field, we advocate for a Design Thinking approach that can be integrated into social entrepreneurship education. Specifically, we believe that many of the Design Thinking principles are especially suitable and useful for educators to facilitate student learning as they create and incubate social ventures. We also advance a broader conceptual framework, which we describe as the four main “mega-themes” in social entrepreneurship education, namely innovation, impact, sustainability and scale. We offer ways in which the Design Thinking steps can be integrated and applied to each of these themes and accelerate the social venture creation process. We conclude by discussing and presenting how Design Thinking can complement an overall Systems Thinking perspective.
Jeff Reid and Eric Koester
• Most undergraduate students lack deep expertise, credibility, and professional networks, all of which can be important to entrepreneurial success. How can we help them gain these assets before they even graduate? • What happens when you encounter a student who doesn’t want to start a business venture . . . yet? • How can we help more students discern what they are truly passionate about, and then use entrepreneurship as a vehicle to pursue it immediately? Many recent innovations in entrepreneurship pedagogy have significantly enhanced how students learn about topics such as evaluating opportunities using lean startup methods (Blank, Ries, Osterwalder), effecting the world around them (Sarasvathy), or developing an entrepreneurial mindset (Neck, Neck, Murray). The Creator Pedagogy builds on these efforts by providing students with a path to entrepreneurial action regardless of whether they are ready to launch their own business.
The field of entrepreneurship continues to experience considerable growth, embedded in beliefs of economic development, innovation, and meritocracy. The chapter examines a new concept in entrepreneurship: compensatory entrepreneurship. It is defined as the political endorsement of entrepreneurship promotion activities, including training, incubation, and media dissemination, for the primary objective of maintaining political and/or economic control of one population over another. The paper discusses the contemporary field of entrepreneurship with the expectation of creating more awareness and dialog regarding some of the socio-political consequences of entrepreneurship promotion.