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.
Browse by title
Dafna Kariv, Harry Matlay and Alain Fayolle
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.
Prateek Shekhar, Aileen Huang-Saad and Julie Libarkin
Undergraduate engineering students are increasingly being exposed to entrepreneurship through curricular and co-curricular programs (Gilmartin, Chen, & Estrada, 2016). While historically, self-employment and venture creation has been the target of entrepreneurship education (Katz, 2003), recent efforts and advances in entrepreneurship education focus on developing graduates with skills to identify and develop opportunities, fostering innovation in their respective fields of work (Standish- Kuon & Rice, 2002). This shift in focus of entrepreneurship education from venture creation and conceptualization of entrepreneurship as a developable skillset rather than an innate characteristic has fueled the development of entrepreneurship programs outside of business schools in the United States (U.S.) and other parts of the world (Katz, 2003). Expanding from traditional business-focused programs, the pedagogy and content of these emergent entrepreneurship programs has evolved from traditional case-based methods to more immersive, experiential approaches to entrepreneurship education. In addition to imparting entrepreneurial content knowledge, these programs target the development of entrepreneurship-related characteristics and domain-general skills in undergraduate students. In the U.S., fueled by recent National Science Foundation initiatives in entrepreneurship such as the Epicenter Program: National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation (Epicenter, 2017) and I-Corps Program (NSF, 2016), entrepreneurship is gaining significant traction in higher education institutions. Using a wide variety of student-centered pedagogical approaches and formats, undergraduate entrepreneurship programs focus on preparing students to succeed in a competitive technology-driven economy by exposing them to entrepreneurial practice (e.g. opportunity identification and customary discovery) and business content knowledge. Due to this student-centered experiential learning emphasis, universities offer entrepreneurship education to undergraduates through both curricular coursework and informal co-curricular programs. Our presented work focuses on examining differences in self-efficacy outcomes resulting from engagement in these curricular and co-curricular learning experiences.
Raj V. Mahto, William McDowell, Sandipen Sen and Saurabh Ahluwalia
Entrepreneurship education and training programs are attracting significant student followers in colleges and universities in the US and countries across the globe. The strong correlation between entrepreneurship and economic development has informed policymakers at various levels of government to enact policies and legislations supporting entrepreneurship that is further fueling demand for entrepreneurship education. This has notably increased the call to improve entrepreneurship education in general, and a need for greater numbers of qualified faculty to teach entrepreneurship. The limited availability of entrepreneurship faculty, however, coupled with rapid growth of entrepreneurship course offerings in colleges offers multiple opportunities for improvement. We believe the current entrepreneurship education can be transformed using the application of new technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT). In this article, we examine the transformative power of the IoT and related technologies and its current and potential impact on entrepreneurship education. The application of IoT is already disrupting many industries, transforming consumers’ lives, and changing business operations. Institutions of higher education can benefit through the application of IoT. The application of IoT can specially benefit entrepreneurship education and training programs leading to more startups by graduates. We argue that IoT allows faculty and universities to customize entrepreneurship course content for each individual student. The application of IoT empowers faculty to offer an enriching experiential learning, leverage resources, integrate various stakeholders, and engage and support students in a post-graduate phase.
Lee J. Zane and Andrew Zimbroff
Do you want to have your students work with prototypes so they can experience the process of new product development? Do you want to help them more fully understand the concepts of Minimum Viable Product (MVP), iterative development, and user testing? If so, this hands-on class exercise is a great choice for your students to learn important product development concepts through the nexus of thought and action. Students need to understand that having a good idea does not necessarily equate to a viable product or service. They need to learn how to gather critical feedback that can be used to test and hopefully improve their ideas, or make them acceptable to the market. This exercise is designed to be the second of two 90 minute sessions on new product development. The first 90 minute session is used for lecture and textbook material where we discuss topics such as resources, new product development process, MVP, and prototyping. If your class schedule does not allocate 90 minutes to a class, mold the lecture and exercise to fit your schedule.
Our understanding of history is shaped not only by our knowledge of the factual events of the past but also our perceptions of those events. It is our perceptions that help us make sense of what has happened and allow us to apply what we have learned from the past in the present. The following discussion is intended as an interpretive history of a remarkable organization, the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. The purpose is not to provide a treatise but rather a selective view of the perceptions of a number of individuals privileged to hold leadership positions in the organization. The discussion begins with an overview of a number of strategic pivots taken by the leadership of the organization during particularly challenging times since just before and following the national economic crisis of 2008. The discussion is augmented by the personal recollections of three United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) presidents who led the organization during particularly eventful periods. Jeffrey Alves, President in 2008, provides a broad perspective regarding what he views as the key strategic pivot points leading up to and following his time both as President and as a long-serving board member. Jeff Cornwall, President in 2010, presents a personal recollection of the events leading up to his decision to accept the nomination as President and the challenges the organization faced in the aftermath of the U.S. economic crisis. Finally, Heidi Neck, President in 2017, reviews a more recent period of the organization’s history. She details a significant strategic pivot made by the organization, not in response to a financial crisis, but rather in response to a crisis of strategic identity.