Edited by Elias G. Carayannis, Giovanni B. Dagnino, Sharon Alvarez and Rosario Faraci
Jonas Gabrielsson, Hans Landström, Diamanto Politis and Gustav Hägg
The growth of entrepreneurship education has played an important role in building up an academic infrastructure for entrepreneurship research. In this chapter we identify exemplary European contributions to entrepreneurship education research and practice. We discuss the evolution of entrepreneurship education as a scholarly field in Europe with particular emphasis on its social infrastructure and cognitive development. Thereafter we use a systematic literature review to identify important contributions made by European-based scholars to entrepreneurship education research published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Based on the review we identify top research journals with the most published articles on entrepreneurship education, the most cited articles, and the most influential scholars. We end the chapter with a description of the European Entrepreneurship Education Award (EEEA) together with summary analyses of the work of the six Award Laureates.
Patricia G. Greene, Michael L. Fetters, Richard Bliss and Anne Donnellon
In 2004, Henry Mintzberg launched a powerful critique of business education that spurred much debate, discussion, and innovation in our schools. While we do not disagree with his premises, we believe that most of the activity since has been akin to the old cliché of ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’. As we academics have focused on improving our offerings to degree candidates, many business people, and certainly those who start or run their own businesses, have been looking elsewhere for education – a trend that colleges and universities cannot afford to ignore. In this chapter, we suggest that academic business educators have much to learn from what is occurring outside of our walls. We focus on one program in particular, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses, to demonstrate how several central debates and unexamined assumptions in management education can be re-examined to enhance our ability to contribute to economic development. The same can be said of institutional arrangements that limit our reach and impact. Our example identifies how these barriers can be overcome to the benefit of the majority of businesses and business people, in this United States, and throughout the world.
Edited by Urban Gråsjö, Charlie Karlsson and Iréne Bernhard
Promoting Growth and Welfare in Times of Crisis
Edited by Charlie Karlsson, Charlotte Silander and Daniel Silander
Vincenzo Butticè and Massimo G. Colombo
Literature on crowdfunding has highlighted the role of social capital developed within the platform (internal social capital) in determining the success of a funding campaign. However, to date, prior studies have neglected to determine whether industry specificity may influence this effect. In this chapter, the authors aim to fill this gap by investigating how social capital influences the funding of products belonging to different industries. Using a dataset of 34,121 project launched on Kickstarter during 2014, they found that the internal social capital effect varies by industry and is stronger in magnitude when the industry is characterized by high demand uncertainty and task complexity. Overall, these findings contribute to a better understanding of the role of social capital in early stage financing.
Considering the current state of knowledge in entrepreneurship education, we call for a pragmatic and critical approach in the development of future perspectives on entrepreneurship education research. We highlight the need to develop research focusing on the three main dimensions: target, connect and reflect. Target refers to building theoretical foundations. Connect and reflect refer to bridging disciplines and communities (research and practice) and increasing the critical thinking perspective respectively. In this line of thoughts, this chapter presents the different contributions of the Research Agenda in Entrepreneurship Education book. This collective work is an attempt to promote innovative and to a certain extent provocative contributions aiming at producing knowledge on the three dimensions above. Our intention is to bring a significant value to entrepreneurship education researchers, policy-makers and practitioners.
Sharon Alvarez, Elias G. Carayannis, Giovanni Battista Dagnino and Rosario Faraci
In the introductory chapter, the authors spell out the contributions that the book advances to the emerging debate on entrepreneurial ecosystems and the diffusion of startups, and illustrate the reasons that led them to gather nine relevant conceptual and empirical contributions written by 21 leading scholars from various parts of the world in the field of entrepreneurship and strategy. They define the target audience of the book as entrepreneurship and strategy students, academics and a wide array of practitioners, such as entrepreneurs, executives, consultants and policy makers. The structure of the book is outlined and an overview of the chapters provided.
A growing number of innovations in entrepreneurship education enable teaching without using the case-study method. We argue that some of these innovations not only address recurrent criticism made against business schools but also form a new pedagogical model. We propose to describe this model as the impact-based method. It refers to the ways in which learning is developed by taking steps to change practices and habits existing outside the academic arena. In this chapter, we describe how this approach transforms the traditional business school: the students from heteronomous become autonomous, the knowledge from abstract becomes grounded, the culture from homogeneous becomes heterogeneous and the institution from global becomes local. Implications for the organizational model of the business schools are discussed.
Process philosophy has drawn attention to the world as ambiguous and ever changing, however, also enactable. This makes entrepreneurship a processual phenomenon, rightly addressed as ‘entrepreneuring’. Recognizing not only their cognitive, yet also affective and conative capabilities, makes it possible for human actors to mobilize forces that bring the world to a standstill long enough to create a venture for value creation. This, however, calls for insight that is different to universal scientific knowledge – episteme and techne – namely situated insights addressed as m_tis and phronesis. M_tis then concerns alertness and shrewdness and phronesis is about prudence in the context of action. Academic education can only provide the latter competencies able to train for entrepreneuring by letting the students travel across the boundaries of the university. In addition, the dominance of management as an ideology must be pro-actively dealt with in order to create space for entrepreneurial practices. Three cases in academic training for entrepreneuring, all in the Swedish context, which show radically different ways of dealing with these challenges, are presented in a comparative analysis. The lessons are summarized as general conditions for providing training that advances entrepreneurship students’ situated and actionable insights.