Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century: Volume 24

At its essence, entrepreneurship has the potential to empower and to transform. The key to both individual and organizational prosperity in a dynamic, threatening and complex world is the ability to think and act in more entrepreneurial ways. A new wave of economic development is sweeping the world, with entrepreneurship and innovation as the primary catalysts. Within the world of education, it can be argued that the at-risk student is the one not prepared for this entrepreneurial age. While every student has the potential, most lack the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and capabilities that define entrepreneurial competence. Over these past four decades, entrepreneurship has grown within universities faster than virtually any other area of intellectual pursuit. And it appears that the pace is accelerating with more universities seeking to develop programs and centers focused on entrepreneurship. Yet, understanding how to build entrepreneurship programs that empower and transform has remained challenging for some institutions. In this chapter, we investigate the development of entrepreneurship programs in universities. More specifically we contend that they should be created for empowerment and transformation across the campus. We describe some of the most common structural forms, outline the different degree programs, and emphasize the empowering and transforming effects of these programs for all the stakeholders of a university.

This chapter explores the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. The concept of ecosystem comes from the natural sciences, but is increasingly applied to regional development, or clusters, which focus on firm inter-organizational relationships. Building on the idea of the university is a key player in a local entrepreneurship ecosystem, this chapter provides a framework for examining a school’s role in this process. A typology is presented that articulates roles that schools may pursue in developing their own internal entrepreneurship education ecosystem.

Entrepreneurship education has had a remarkable evolution over time and the number of entrepreneurship textbooks has multiplied given the increased interest in entrepreneurship programs in higher education. Yet, studies that review the coverage of textbooks focusing on entrepreneurship are scarce. This study provides an inventory of entrepreneurship textbooks and the topics they cover as well as specific emerging topics they do not cover by analyzing the content of 57 textbooks. Our results suggest that most textbooks provide significant coverage of such topics as the nature of entrepreneurship, business plans, financing, marketing, and cases. Among emerging concepts, social media has been relatively well covered with increasing coverage in more recent textbooks, while business canvas, as an example of alternatives to conventional business plans, is rarely covered. Most textbooks have provided little coverage of such topics as sales, family business, women and minorities, as well as ethics and sustainability. This study not only reveals areas that are covered by existing textbooks but also themes that future textbooks and research could cover to address the challenges of future entrepreneurship education.

This paper investigates empirically the link between entrepreneurship education programs and students’ entrepreneurial behavior, with a particular focus on the distinction between experiential and classroom-based education. We introduce a more refined measure of entrepreneurial engagement that combines entrepreneurship intention and actual steps taken to realize that intention. Using data from a survey of 836 students at the National University of Singapore (NUS), we utilize linear regression models to examine not only the direct effect of entrepreneurship education program participation on entrepreneurial engagement, but also its possible interaction effect with several psychological constructs drawn from the Theory of Planned Behavior. The results show that participation in university entrepreneurship programs, especially experiential-learning programs, has significant positive influence on students’ entrepreneurial engagement. Moreover, the effect of program participation is significantly moderated by the students’ attitudes and perceptions. The findings have important practical implications for universities in designing entrepreneurship programs on campus. The study supports the call to move toward hands-on experiential programs as a more effective way for educational institutions to influence students’ entrepreneurial behavior and encourage venture creation activity on campus. We also contribute to the literature by confirming the impact of entrepreneurship education not only on entrepreneurial intentions but also on the concrete steps taken by students toward venture creation.

Within a knowledge-driven, entrepreneurial economy, an increase in a university’s importance is observed because of its significant affect on the economy. Thus, entrepreneurship is a phenomenon that could be observed among all university levels: management, academicians, researchers, and undergraduate and postgraduate students. Entrepreneurial universities could produce several externalities in terms of demography, economy, infrastructure, culture, mobility, education, and societal challenges that will later be reflected in productivity, competitive advantages, and regional capacities, networks, identity, and innovation. In this context, entrepreneurial universities have or are positioned to develop innovative pathways to reinforce entrepreneurship in their communities. This chapter explores how entrepreneurial university pathways (education and training) have had an impact on students’ start-up intentions and actions. Adopting the institutional economics approach, this research proposes a conceptual model, tested with a sample of 1,759 university students enrolled in three entrepreneurial universities (ITESM, Mexico; UNICAMP, Brazil; and UPC, Chile) in Latin America. Our findings confirm the relevant effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up creation. Not only do the results provide important contributions to the literature, they also provide insights for policy-makers to design policies that further benefit society and educational organizations.

Entrepreneurship research has paid little attention to variance in entrepreneurial opportunities, instead choosing to treat them as homogenous. Thus, the field has failed to acknowledge that there are significant variations in means–ends conceptualizations giving rise to different types of opportunities. Further, researchers and educators have not fully considered that the type of opportunity being pursued has implications for which entrepreneurial actions are required to realize a successful outcome. We address these issues in this chapter by distinguishing means–ends combinations such that four types of opportunities – replication, reinterpretation, revelation, and revolution – are introduced. This matrix leads to propositions regarding differing actions that would be emphasized as a function of the type opportunity under consideration (e.g., legitimacy building, knowledge assimilation, market demand, and resource acquisition). The net effect is an improved understanding of how variations in means–ends conceptualizations influence how entrepreneurs interpret their particular opportunity, which in turn drives the actions they take as they attempt to turn their vision into reality. This improved understanding has important implications for entrepreneurship education and we suggests a number of possible changes to pedagogy that flow from our framework. We believe that these changes will bring added richness and value to the classroom.

This chapter shares work carried out to use the discipline of Informing Science as a lens to carry out an analysis of the discipline of entrepreneurship. Focusing first at the level of the entrepreneurship discipline itself, recently advanced frameworks for practice-as-entrepreneurial-learning and for the scholarship of teaching and learning for entrepreneurship (SoTLE) are built upon using Gill’s work on academic informing systems to develop a framework that encourages viewing the entrepreneurship discipline as a system that informs entrepreneurial practice. While this may sound self-evident, we will explore how it implies something quite different from the teaching–research–scholarship paradigm to which most of us are accustomed.

Addressing a gap in entrepreneurial training programs, the main objective of this study was to introduce a hybrid training model that provides training to entrepreneurs after they have started their operations and before they become large and/or well established. The presented model consist of a full entrepreneurship training program suited to serve entrepreneurs who have been operating for no less than 2 years, have 1–14 employees, and need basic training to further achieve their operational goals. This format allows for progressive learning while encouraging networking among participants. Using a case study, 5 years of data are presented describing this program and its value for its participants including urban entrepreneurs.

This chapter opens with a brief historical account of the vision and development of the land grant college and university system. This account begins to frame the land grant model as an important American social innovation. Next, the legacy of the land grant system as a social innovation is extended through a review of the role the Cooperative Extension System in enacting the New Deal during the Great Depression era. The topic culminates in the chapter with a critical exploration of the revenue-driven university technology transfer system that is currently in place and presents an alternative model that is anchored in the principles and practices of social entrepreneurship. Land grant colleges and universities are positioned as key agents in advancing such an alternative model, which is consistent with the historical role these institutions have played in advancing the economic and social interests of the nation.

In 2004 and 2007, the Kauffman Foundation awarded 18 universities and colleges $3–5 million dollars each to develop radiant model entrepreneurship education programs and campus-wide entrepreneurial ecosystems. Grant recipients were required to have a senior level administrator to oversee the program who reported to the Provost, President, or Chancellor. Award recipients included Syracuse University (2007) and the University of Rochester (2004). Cornell was not a Kauffman campus. This chapter explores three case studies in the radiant model of university-wide entrepreneurship education as deployed at Cornell University, The University of Rochester, and Syracuse University. The authors examine the history, accelerators, and challenges of the radiant model of university-wide entrepreneurship education.