Since the dawn of the millennium, cross-disciplinary entrepreneurship education has taken hold in primarily US universities, colleges and even in two-year community colleges. It has evolved from being solely in business schools (Dana, 1992, 1993; Gorman et al., 1997). There are also a few examples of universities globally that have adopted this model. Crossdisciplinary entrepreneurship education, for the purposes of our study, refers to courses outside the discipline of entrepreneurship, almost solely located in business schools that have two or more learning objectives (goals) in entrepreneurship together with disciplinespecific learning objectives which are carried through in the assignments and exercises in the class and then measured (Welsh, 2014). Entrepreneurship is woven or blended in the subject and applied for better understanding and application to the discipline (Welsh, 2014). The role of faculty buy-in and participation cannot be over-emphasized when it comes to the success of cross-disciplinary programs (Schneider, 2015). Hynes (1996) developed an early model to integrate entrepreneurship education across campus, focusing on process based on the needs of different groups of students. Engineering has been the predominant discipline in which entrepreneurship has been integrated and achieved early on, but now entrepreneurship education has been integrated in all disciplines, from the arts to the sciences. Experiential education is a popular component of entrepreneurship curricula and is included as a vital component of cross-campus entrepreneurship programs. Internships often are included as either required or elective courses in entrepreneurship programs and may be in multiple departments across campus. Internships give students one-onone experience in entrepreneurial businesses, start-ups, and often include a modeling or shadowing component with an entrepreneur. Internships add experience to the résumé of students before graduating. Internships provide a reality check for students. Giacomin et al. (2016: 938), in a study comparing optimism and overconfidence in students from the US, Spain and India, concluded that ‘students may be unaware of the reality of being an entrepreneur, such as long hours, heavy work load, stress, financial risks, less job security, few benefits, greater vulnerability to market shifts and microeconomic downturns, challenges in balancing work and family, and . . . failure’.
Dianne H.B. Welsh
Dianne H.B. Welsh and Ilan Alon
Dianne H.B. Welsh and Ilan Alon
Dianne H.B. Welsh and Frank Hoy
Although family firms are prevalent in franchising, they have received minimal attention in the academic literature. The chapter reviews the studies on family firm franchises, from the perspectives of both the franchisee and franchisor. The chapter explores theories of franchising that have applicability to family businesses: the Model of Franchise System Development and the Sociological Model, and suggests succession as an addition to both models. Drawing from the family business literature, the chapter introduces the concept of ‘familiness’ as a factor to be considered in ownership and management succession in franchising. The chapter proposes areas with potential for future research which may enable smoother leadership transitions.
Dianne H.B. Welsh, Mariana Dragusin and Raluca Mariana Grosu
The purpose of this pioneering chapter is to contribute to a better understanding of the unexplored potential provided by the Romania’s fast growing ‘silver’ demographic segment to entrepreneurs of all ages. Romanian seniors’ multiple active and passive roles in the longevity/ silver economy are emphasized in a relevant manner. In the context of scarce literature, minimal and newly available government statistics, this empirical research creates new knowledge based on an in-depth comprehensive analysis and interpretation of both primary and secondary data, revealing both general aspects of the analyzed topic and those specific to Romania. It also suggests future research themes and provides direction for future actions of the stakeholders that can play a role in a positive approach to ageing. It is the first time that a book chapter has covered Romanian entrepreneurship, senior entrepreneurship included, that reflects an emerging-market, formerly communist country and the challenges and opportunities related to its ageing population.
Julia Vincent Ponroy and Dianne H.B. Welsh
This chapter explores creativity in family businesses and asks the important question: Do family businesses represent organizational contexts likely to encourage creativity? The authors begin by defining creativity and outline the antecedents to creativity. Next, they discuss the connection between creativity and innovation and the characteristics in family firms that foster or hinder creativity from both organizational and individual perspectives. Concerning measurement, Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is offered as a potential new avenue with merit to analyse creativity in family firms. The authors discuss what research has been conducted so far on PsyCap, creativity and family firms and describe further directions. They conclude that creativity is an area ripe for research that may unlock some of the unanswered questions that have plagued the field and might offer practical solutions for family firm competitiveness and longevity.
Sarah C. Carraher, Shawn M. Carraher and Dianne H.B. Welsh
Social entrepreneurship is a segment within the entrepreneurial literature that focuses on entrepreneurs who use their entrepreneurial talents to achieve social and potentially financial gains to fund the social aspect from their endeavors. Researchers have characterized social entrepreneurship as a leadership position that requires an exceptional set of skills to produce innovative social results, which are difficult to measure from a market perspective (Dees, 1998). Owing to their creative process, these leaders may be able to find solutions to social problems which elude or confound typical experts in the respective social fields. They are not a replacement for current social endeavors by nonprofit organizations and government but are a critical complement which may be able to produce extraordinary results for the persons they seek to serve through the entrepreneurial process. Social entrepreneurs may also provide a critical balance to the dark side of entrepreneurial behavior which could produce negative effects for constituents through predatory or unethical behaviors in the pursuit of profit (Zahra and Wright, 2016). The personal mission of social entrepreneurs may stem from a need to make a difference in the world and to contribute to alleviating diverse issues such as hunger, poverty or other inequities in basic resources. A bibliometric analysis of research in social entrepreneurship showed that although the term came into being in 1964, it was only after 2003 that interest in studying this particular facet of entrepreneurship began to increase in popularity. Most of the research on this topic is found in western journals, but this could also be because not all non-English journals were included in the Web of Science (Rey-Marti et al., 2015). Quantitative research involving the global entrepreneurship model (GEM) studies found that countries with higher rates of entrepreneurship also had higher incidences of social entrepreneurship, and that countries with the highest rates of social entrepreneurship were also developed countries. This work confirmed that the social entrepreneur is a unique person with specialized skills and that, across countries and levels of economic development, social entrepreneurship may look different and be apparent in greater or lesser forms (Lepoutre et al., 2013).