The question of educative training has not been touched until we know what the child has been internally occupied with, what the predominating direction of his attention, his feelings, his disposition has been while he has been engaged upon this task … no account of educative training actually secured is adequate unless it recognizes the division of attention into which the child is being educated, and faces the question of what the worth of such division may be. (Dewey, 1913: 8-9)
A good teacher must stand where personal and public meet, dealing with the thundering flow of traffic at an intersection where “weaving a web of connectedness” feels more like crossing a freeway on foot. As we try to connect ourselves and our subjects with our students, we make ourselves, as well as our subjects, vulnerable to indifference, judgment, ridicule. (Palmer, 1998: 17)
Albert N. Link and John T. Scott
This chapter summarizes the theory and practice of public- sector R & D economic analysis with specific reference to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) efforts to document the impact that their in- house R & D has had on society. Motivating this research is the general expectation and challenge for public institutions to be accountable for their use of public resources. Economic impact analysis is one way that public institutions can quantify the social contribution of their activity. Impact analysis can also provide important lessons to management about the effectiveness of previous resource allocation decisions, and it can provide guidelines for future strategic planning
Edited by Charles H. Matthews and Eric W. Liguori
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.