Table of contents(11 chapters)
There are those who suggest the experiential and action-oriented nature of entrepreneurship makes traditional content-focused lecture a less appropriate pedagogical approach when teaching entrepreneurship courses. This chapter challenges such suggestions, arguing that the lecture should be the centerpiece of entrepreneurship education, augmented by experiential learning tools and other pedagogical approaches. Such a blended model, when built around the lecture, has the potential to greatly enhance learning, improve student retention, encourage student thought and reflection, and better develop entrepreneurial skills and competencies associated with the entrepreneurial mindset. The chapter also summarizes the nature of the content delivered through entrepreneurship courses, classifying this content into three general categories, and concluding that this core content is substantive, complex, and highly inter-related. These characteristics reinforce the importance of great lectures for moving entrepreneurship education forward.
Entrepreneurship education exists to give provide students the tools and perspective necessary to make an informed decision about when starting a business is right for them. It is holistic, giving students a sense for the entire process as well as what it means to be an entrepreneur. It is occasionally technical; it is undoubtedly exciting and complex. Why then does so much of academe employ rote-lecturing techniques to provide this training? Entrepreneurship is a process and a behavior set – not a person-specific attribute. Until students are allowed out of their seats to engage in behaviors other than note taking, they will not understand how to act entrepreneurially. This chapter explores this inconsistency, why traditional approaches are so problematic and modern experiential approaches that can help.
The emergence of the lean start-up movement has cast doubt and skepticism among entrepreneurship educators and practitioners regarding the usefulness of writing a formal business plan for training the next generation of entrepreneurs. In one camp, there is a group of entrepreneurship education professionals who continue to advocate for the usefulness and necessity for teaching students these basic business plan development skills. In an alternative camp, there is another faction of education professionals who believe that the business plan process is counterproductive and is an unnecessary distraction for today’s millennial entrepreneurs seeking to create their own new ventures. In this chapter, we argue why it is important to adopt a lean start-up framework and approach in both entrepreneurship courses and in curriculum design in early-stage venturing. We offer 10 reasons why entrepreneurship educators should place less emphasis on business planning and more emphasis on business modeling during the early stages of evaluating the feasibility of a venture. We believe that educators and curriculum designers need to rethink the traditional approach of building an entrepreneurship program based upon the business plan as the guiding framework. We then conclude our discussion with suggestions on where and how elements of the business plan can and should be introduced into the new venture development process and appropriately positioned in entrepreneurship curricula. We propose a renewed and reconciled view of the Lean Start-up versus Business Plan debate, as both are considered necessary but neither is sufficient to support the full lifecycle of the venturing process.
Entrepreneurship ecosystems have become ubiquitous in the discussions around economic growth and new venture creation. Despite growing scholarly interest, however, the theoretical and conceptual foundations are still rudimentary, causing much debate among researchers and practitioners. At the center of these debates are questions like What are the boundaries of ecosystems? Are ecosystems build from the top-down or from the bottom-up? Or How can we measure the success of ecosystems? In this chapter, we summarize these discussions, present an overview of the existing research, and give an outlook on future directions.
It is clear that entrepreneurship has a major impact on the economy because of the innovation, competition, productivity, wealth generation, and job creation all developed through new ventures. However, researchers have been divided on what specific type of entrepreneurial venture is best for economic growth and job creation. This chapter examines the debate between researchers on whether or not a “gazelle” approach, focusing only on high growth ventures, or a “portfolio” approach, taking in account all the various types of ventures, is better for economic growth and job creation. The gazelle approach’s solution is for the government to only invest in those firms that are high growth. In contrast, the portfolio approach’s solution is to encourage all forms of entrepreneurship because the ventures are interdependent on each other in the entrepreneurial ecosystem and each venture no matter the size is serving some purpose to the economy. This chapter highlights the two sides of the issue but also argues that in order for a true entrepreneurial economy to exist then all various type of ventures need to be encouraged in order for competition to be greatest and for society to reap the highest benefits.
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance between the rapid growth of entrepreneurship education programs in higher education and the insignificant, if not negative, correlation to new venture creation, especially among the college-aged and recent graduate demographic (Fairlie, Reedy, Morelix, & Russell, 2016; National Chamber Foundation, 2012). Is a bachelor’s degree in entrepreneurship worth it? No, it is argued here that a bachelor’s degree in entrepreneurship is not worth it for a student whose goal is to be an entrepreneur by founding his or her own venture for two main reasons. First, the most important part of an entrepreneur is the set of the dispositional traits that enable them to acquire and operationalize any skill or knowledge quickly, and these cannot be learned through instruction in any degree program. Second, a major in entrepreneurship necessarily means concentrating the majority of study on the diverse, practically infinite, set of possible skills and knowledge needed, at the expense of a deep focus on an area of specialized knowledge from which high quality opportunities can be discovered. Almost any other bachelor’s degree program offers more in terms of opportunity discovery. Given these points, almost any other bachelor’s degree is worth more to a student whose goal is to found a new venture, as they ultimately allow for the discovery of higher quality opportunities for venture creation.
We discuss the value of a Bachelor’s Degree in Entrepreneurship. We do this in part by responding to some of the most common criticisms for the perceived shortcoming of the degree. Some of the issues addressed include the benefit of a major over a minor; the advantage of experience versus education; and the degree’s effectiveness in preparing students for an entrepreneurial career. We base most of the responses on our experiences at Loyola Marymount University. We conclude by pointing out that the Entrepreneurship degree can serve as a powerful foundation for the right type of students.
The location of entrepreneurship centers on university campuses has been the subject of debate as the traditional model of business school centers has been challenged by development of centralized structures. The purpose of this chapter is to explore some of the benefits and challenges when a center transitions from a college-based structure to one that is centrally controlled. This chapter provides a qualitative case study of the transition of an entrepreneurship center from a business college to a centralized model housed under a campus-wide office of research and innovation. It argues that a centralized entrepreneurship center can promote campus partnerships on programming, connect the center more effectively with other centralized resources, increase participation from students and faculty from a wider range of colleges, and provide a platform for cross-college collaboration. A key challenge can be the potential separation from faculty research and curriculum development.
There has been an ongoing debate regarding where a university should house entrepreneurship programs. Should they be in the business school, at the central administration level, or housed in another college such as engineering? Many argue that the entrepreneurship programs should be housed where the best ideas come from (i.e., engineering, computer science, or biosciences). Others strongly argue on traditional lines that entrepreneurship involves essential business tools so the programs need to be housed there. This chapter asserts that the debate over location is moot in regards to how to more effectively launch start-ups and create entrepreneurial talent. For a university to be effective, it needs to build an ecosystem that integrates programs, people, and ideas from across the campus and avoid the traditional silos that schools and colleges create. A model for this from the University of Missouri-Kansas City is used to illustrate an effective university entrepreneurial ecosystem.
- Publication date
- Book series
- Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth
- Series copyright holder
- Emerald Publishing Limited
- Book series ISSN