Prelims

Half Title Page

THE GREAT DEBATES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Series Page

ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

Series Editors: Sherry Hoskinson and Donald F. Kuratko

Recent Volumes:

Title Page

ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH VOLUME 27

THE GREAT DEBATES IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

EDITED BY

DONALD F. KURATKO

Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

SHERRY HOSKINSON

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India – Malaysia – China

Copyright Page

Emerald Publishing Limited

Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK

First edition 2017

Copyright © 2017 Emerald Publishing Limited

Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-78743-076-1 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-78743-075-4 (Online)

ISBN: 978-1-78743-261-1 (Epub)

ISSN: 1048-4736 (Series)

List of Contributors

Introduction: The Great Debates in Entrepreneurship

The Entrepreneurship Education Explosion

Entrepreneurship education has been emerging and growing over the past 30 years (e.g., Brush et al., 2003; Dickson, Solomon, & Weaver, 2008; Gartner & Vesper, 1994; Katz, 2003, 2004, 2008; Kuratko, 2005; Solomon, 2007; Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy, 2002; Solomon & Fernald, 1991; Solomon, Weaver, & Fernald, 1994; Vesper & Gartner, 1997, 1999). While the studies always note a variety of obstacles and challenges at the time, they also document a remarkable rate of growth and development in the curricula and related campus-based programs devoted to entrepreneurship and new venture creation. The number of colleges and universities offering courses related to entrepreneurship has grown from a handful in the 1970s to thousands across the globe today (Kuratko, 2017). Large numbers of universities now offer majors, minors, concentrations, certificates, and master’s degrees in entrepreneurship. Some of the more prestigious research universities have developed Ph.D. programs to prepare the next generation of entrepreneurship scholars. Over 700 universities across the globe have created centers and institutes, and a growing number are launching academic departments, co-departments, and schools (Morris, Kuratko, & Cornwall, 2013).

The popularity of entrepreneurship education has been tied to the potential for enhancing levels of innovation and economic growth in society. By educating students for start-up or corporate entrepreneurial activities, either upon graduation or at a subsequent point in their careers, policy makers believe that it is important for economic growth (Charney & Libecap, 2000; Kolvereid & Moen, 1997; Menzies, 2004, 2009; McMullan & Gillin, 1998; Upton, Sexton, & Moore, 1995). To date, the large majority of these educational programs have been centered on business school students and the related business school stakeholders (Finkle, Menzies, Kuratko, & Goldsby, 2013; Kuratko, 2017).

In recent years, there has been a movement to spread entrepreneurship education into schools and colleges across entire campuses (Cone, 2004; Gatewood, 2009; Thorp & Goldstein, 2010). Some of the more visible initiatives were facilitated by a number of large grants from the Kauffman Foundation in the first few years of the twenty-first century, but many of these programs waned once the funding was exhausted. Other efforts have been more modest and sporadic, sometimes lacking clear purpose or strategic direction. The challenges have been significant, ranging from funding needs and staffing challenges to coordination and control difficulties as well as overt skepticism or resistance from deans, department heads, faculty, and staff. Morris, Kuratko, and Pryor (2014) provided a clearer conceptualization of the university-wide entrepreneurship concept, together with a richer understanding of factors contributing to its successful implementation and sustainability.

The Concept of Debates

However, as with any discipline that grows exponentially as entrepreneurship has done, there arise numerous ideas with differing opinions about their value. It may be about certain educational tools or specific concerns about the entrepreneurship degree itself. All of the positions taken on the different issues have caused a series of “debates” to begin. In 2015 at the Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers Conference, the conference director, Michael H. Morris of the University of Florida, initiated a platform for the various debates to be presented. Because the debates drew the largest attendance of any sessions at the conference, the organizers of the conference decided in 2016 at the University of Rochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology to continue the platform for more debates. Again, the sessions were well attended and hugely effective in bringing out the views more clearly.

After the 2 years of debates being verbally presented, the concept of a volume to print some of the key points of these debates arose. The volume editors, Donald F. Kuratko and Sherry Hoskinson, extended invitations to all of the presenters in the debates to submit a written analysis of their position on the particular issue being debated. While not every presenter accepted the invitation, a number of excellent entrepreneurship scholars and teachers did step up and accept the invitation. Their work is the product of this current volume.

The pages ahead will unveil some of the most interesting perspectives on topics of great interest in the entrepreneurship education world today. For example, topics such as the benefits of entrepreneurship experiential teaching methods; the genuineness of entrepreneurial ecosystems; pursuing or avoiding a degree in entrepreneurship; the business plan vs. the lean startup approach; the gazelle versus portfolio arguments in policy development; and where should entrepreneurship centers be controlled? Without the diligent work of the authors, this volume could not have been possible. The following scholar/teachers provided the excellent and provocative material in this volume:

Michael H. Morris, University of Florida: “Why Content and Lecture Matter in Entrepreneurship Education”

Jaime L. Williams and Richard J. Gentry, University of Mississippi: “Keeping It Real: The Benefits of Experiential Teaching Methods in Meeting the Objectives of Entrepreneurship Education”

Alex F. DeNoble, San Diego State University, and Ted D. Zoller, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “Is the Business Plan Really Dead and Should it Be?:A Case for the Lean Startup Approach”

Xaver Neumeyer, University of North Dakota, and Andrew C. Corbett, Babson College: “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Weak Metaphor or Genuine Concept?”

Donald F. Kuratko and Elise N. Hudson, Indiana University: “Gazelle Solution vs. Portfolio Thinking”

Alexander Zorychta, University of Virginia: “Aspiring Entrepreneurs Should Not Major in Entrepreneurship”

David Y. Choi, Jason F. D’Mello and Darlene Fukuji, Loyola Marymount University: “Valuing a Bachelor Degree in Entrepreneurship – The LMU Experience”

Jeanne M. Hossenlopp, Marquette University: “Should University Entrepreneurship Centers be Controlled Centrally? Lessons Learned from Transitioning from a Business School to a Centralized Center”

As one can see, this collection of documented debate articles represents some unique and challenging perspectives to examining the issues surrounding entrepreneurship. However, it is in that uniqueness of these perspectives where we believe a significant contribution is made to advancing our knowledge of issues that are being debated today. Entrepreneurship is a dynamic discipline growing in importance every year so the debates presented in this issue stand on the forefront of making a deeper impact for the challenges that confront tomorrow’s entrepreneurship educators. Let the debates begin!

Donald F. Kuratko

Sherry Hoskinson

Editors