A Global Research Perspective
Edited by Candida G. Brush, Nancy M. Carter, Elizabeth J. Gatewood, Patricia G. Greene and Myra M. Hart
The Role and Impact of Universities in National Innovation Systems
Edited by Poh Kam Wong
The Individual-Opportunity Nexus
Issues of Human Capital, Financial Capital and Network Structures
Andrea E. Smith-Hunter
University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation
Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise
Saras D. Sarasvathy
Government, University and Business Linkages
Edited by Scott Shane
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.
Andrew Penaluna and Kathryn Penaluna
Written from the perspective of authors with extensive experience of design education as well as entrepreneurial education, this chapter observes the dominance of business school perspectives and suggests that a closer look at design education could ‘oil the wheels of development’. The main objectives are to overtly align the parallels discovered, question the perceived superficiality of Design Thinking as an interpretation of how designers are taught, and to consider areas of contrast and conformity. Our questions ask if entrepreneurial educators and researchers are reinventing wheels, and, if this is the case, where are the opportunities to learn? We find that creativity, innovation, resilience, flexibility and adaptability, opportunity recognition, dealing with ambiguity, risk and failure are aspects that bridge both worlds. However, business education is primarily evaluated through theory expression and application using analysis and hindsight, whereas design education is future oriented and rewards synthesis, novelty, insight and foresight. Design education is inherently experiential, and focuses on resourcefulness and innovation; thus, it provides exemplars for further research and development.
Mark P. Rice and William C. Stitt
The pedagogical system described in this chapter has evolved through an iterative process of course development involving seven faculties, three universities and four courses. This learning experience has been tailored for mid-career working professionals participating in a part-time, blended learning MBA program. The learning experience utilizes a comprehensive portfolio of pedagogical techniques designed to achieve three overarching learning outcomes: mastery of knowledge; development of a skillset to enable effective application of the knowledge mastered, including the capacity for self-directed learning; and development of an entrepreneurial mindset. Instead of being instructor-centric, this pedagogical system relies on participant-centered learning. In this mode a significant part of the learning value is derived from having the students practice being autodidacts individually and collectively and also from the skill of the professor in facilitating the sharing among students of their insights about knowledge sets, skills sets and mindsets within the context of their differing work environments. The chapter provides assessment of the course from students, faculty and staff.