Government, University and Business Linkages
Edited by Scott Shane
The Role and Impact of Universities in National Innovation Systems
Edited by Poh Kam Wong
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.
Louisa Huxtable-Thomas and Paul D. Hannon
This chapter is based on evidence from a programme of learning aimed at entrepreneur(ial) learners and identifies three dimensions that need to be taken into account when prescribing pedagogies. The results of this study suggest that the traditional methods of designing course delivery have been oversimplified and as a result fail to recognise and utilise the inherent complexity of the learner. That stance is further developed to suggest that ‘what the learner learns’ can only be influenced, not dictated, by what the teacher teaches and therefore the most efficient method is to provide a diverse menu of learning opportunities that look beyond traditional input and feedback designs and plan for intangible and unintended learning outcomes. These include motivation, inspiration, increases in confidence and behavioural changes. This is particularly relevant when considering how best to deliver learning to entrepreneurs in an attempt to improve economic performance in the SME economy.
Michele O’Dwyer, Yvonne Costin and Briga Hynes
Effective entrepreneurial learning is based on creative partnerships between academics, learners and practitioners, and is supported by appropriate theoretical immersion (explicit knowledge) and entrepreneurial exposure (tacit knowledge). This study explores the use of the Method Approach as a tool in entrepreneurial learning knowledge transfer. Adopting a qualitative research methodology, 22 in-depth interviews were undertaken with learners who had participated in three entrepreneurship modules using a variety of educational tools based on the Method Approach. The study found that the Method Approach and its five linked constituent elements (play, empathy, creation, experimentation and reflection) is an effective entrepreneurial learning tool in transferring both explicit and tacit knowledge, helping learners transition from nascent entrepreneurial knowledge to a more holistic, applied interpretation of entrepreneurship as practice. The results suggest that the Method Approach should be extended to include module delivery and entrepreneurial identity.
Muhammad Zaheer Asghar, Paula Kyrö and Fariha Gul
Entrepreneurship education focuses on the way policy makers develop the entrepreneurial mindset of the students through educational policies and practices in educational institutions. Teachers’ guidelines should be available on the adaptation of entrepreneurial curricula according to the students’ needs and according to the teaching of the subject matter. The current study aims to explore the process of entrepreneurship curriculum adaptation among in-service teachers of vocational education in Pakistan. Curriculum adaptation presupposes admissible alterations in the curriculum in order to achieve an educational environment which enables learners to equally access both benefits and learning achievements. The research question under study is: ‘how do vocational education teachers adapt the curriculum for the effective delivery of entrepreneurship education?’ The objective of the study is to find out the adaptation process of the entrepreneurship education objectives, contents, pedagogical skills and assessment techniques. The study is based on the theoretical framework of Aghazadeh (2007). The research question is answered through the exploratory research method. Semi-structured interviews from experts (n = 5) and open-ended questionnaires from in-service vocational education teachers (n = 25) have been conducted. Qualitative content analysis has been used for the analysis of interviews and written responses. The results reveal that entrepreneurship education aims to enhance entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and the attitude of the students. The objectives of entrepreneurship education can be achieved through creative content adaptation and versatile pedagogical skills. A flexible and innovative school climate linked with the entrepreneurial ecosystem is also needed. The assessment of entrepreneurship education requires versatile techniques. Future research may be conducted in order to study the impact of entrepreneurship education curriculum adaptation on the entrepreneurial mindset of the students.
Jaana Seikkula-Leino, Elena Ruskovaara, Timo Pihkala, Iván Diego Rodríguez and Jane Delfino
Entrepreneurship education is increasingly promoted in the European Union, and European countries are fast developing their policies for entrepreneurship education. It seems however that schools and teachers have difficulties in implementing entrepreneurship education in their work. This chapter concerns teachers’ ability to commit to entrepreneurship education, especially to its aims, implementation and outcomes. The study applies a qualitative methodology, analysing responses from 61 teachers from the UK, Spain and Finland. The results of the study suggest that teacher commitment to entrepreneurship education is obstructed in many ways. Overall, it seems that teachers have difficulties in explicating their aims for entrepreneurship education. As such, the phenomenon seems distant and teachers’ personal attachment to it may remain low. We suggest that the measures to support policy-level objectives are not targeted correctly or cannot reach the schools and teachers that need them. We conclude that the development of expectations for entrepreneurship education has been faster than the development of teacher commitment. This is an important result as the introduction of more sophisticated and complex approaches to entrepreneurship education requires skilful and committed teachers as facilitators. Our results suggest that teacher training on entrepreneurship education should be developed further. In essence, the teachers’ knowledge of entrepreneurship education, reflection upon it, and, finally, commitment to it can be assisted through training programmes. The chapter contributes to entrepreneurship education research in three ways. First, we identify teachers’ routes to commitment in entrepreneurship education as well as the problems and hindrances obstructing it. Second, with the analysis of teachers from three different countries (the UK, Spain and Finland), we identify the types of variation in commitment and the reasons for the variance. Finally, the analysis shows how teachers’ commitment to entrepreneurship education is built in Europe.
Lenita Hietanen and Heikki Ruismäki
Despite numerous entrepreneurship education (EE) guidelines and efforts, the number of start-ups created by secondary vocational or higher education graduates has not increased significantly. This qualitative comparative study examines three previous EE development cases using Fayolle’s (2013) framework for a generic EE teaching model and aims to strengthen EE even at the lower educational levels. It asks what phase of the entrepreneurial path the students were able to achieve when they participated in the interventions and which elements of basic education can improve students’ awareness of their possible latent nascent entrepreneurship (LNE). The findings show that EE should be taken as a communal task at the institutional level by ensuring that both non-business contents as well as entrepreneurship contents and activities are studied. Enhancing interaction between nearby entrepreneurs and the institution could ensure that students gain adequate entrepreneurship knowledge despite the teachers’ possible lack of competence in EE.