Search results

We conjecture that there are five stages to academic entrepreneurship: motivation, governance, selection, competition, and performance. The process of academic entrepreneurship originates with the motivation of faculty, universities, industry, and government to commercialize knowledge that originates within the university setting. The model conceptualizes that the governance and competitiveness of the commercialized knowledge moderate the mode selection and ultimately the performance of academic entrepreneurship. The conceptual and empirical support for the model are derived from a theory-driven synthesis of articles related to academic entrepreneurship.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.

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.

While there are many guides available on how to construct academic texts, the actual experience of writing can often remain unspoken. In this chapter, I share my personal experience of academic writing in entrepreneurship research, including the enabling and constraining aspects. My aim is to make academic writing more visible and encourage open discussion about this important activity. I approach academic writing as a comprehensive experience, encompassing various dimensions such as embodied, emotional and social aspects. I reflect on the influence of my body, physical conditions, emotions and writing habits on my writing process. Additionally, I consider the impact of external expectations and the context of working in entrepreneurship research, and how they shape my writing style. By examining these different dimensions of my writing experience, I hope to provide insight into the multifaceted nature of academic writing in entrepreneurship research.

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 studies how entrepreneurship research has evolved at the Latin American level. Using the database available in the Web of Science Core Collection, a period-by-period bibliometric analysis is carried out to identify possible changes in research trends over time. On the one hand, the results show that in the period 2000–2006, research focuses mainly on rural development, community development and financial resources. On the other hand, in the period 2007–2013, the research priority is related to international entrepreneurship, private capital raising and studies based on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Finally, during the period between 2014 and 2020, research focused mainly on self-employment, family businesses, promotion of angel investor networks, venture capital, and female entrepreneurship. The results of this study may be of interest to academics, researchers, and policymakers to understand the evolution of this topic in recent decades and to promote entrepreneurship and innovation in the region.

Research universities are recognized as primary sources of the knowledge essential to the development of innovative solutions to a wide range of economic, social, and ecological problems that affect humankind. This utilitarian function of American higher education dates back to the creation of land grant institutions with the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862 (Lucas, 1994; Veysey, 1965). The prominent higher education historian John R. Thelin (2004) described the importance of this land grant legislation by stating, “Its institutional legacy was the accessible state college and university, characterized by a curriculum that was broad and utilitarian” (p. 76). Shifts in the research paradigm that followed the World War II placed further emphasis on applied research that was to be “directed toward some individual or group or societal need or use” (Stokes, 1997, p. 8). Most recently, the utilitarian function of higher education has become closely linked to the commercialization of knowledge and discovery. Specifically, the passing of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allowed colleges and universities to take ownership of intellectual properties created in part or in full through federal funding, allowed the transfer of knowledge from higher education to society through market channels to become standard practice.

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.

Transnational migrant entrepreneurship is an increasingly important and multi-faceted process. Because of the ‘double transition’ of Albanian migrants, in terms of migration (spatial transition) and in terms of transition from socialism to capitalism and more specifically the absence of entrepreneurship experience in their homeland during the communist regime, we might think of Albanians as being in a weak position for mastering entrepreneurship. But, paradoxically, the evidence tends to prove the opposite. Albanians have succeeded in identifying various entrepreneurial opportunities, and are nowadays increasingly engaging in a wider range of entrepreneurial activities. The overall aim of this chapter thus is to analyse the causes and consequences of transnational entrepreneurship among Albanian migrants doing business with Albania and Albanian returnees pursuing business activities with their former destination countries. For this purpose, the author draws on face-to-face interviews with 50 Albanian migrant entrepreneurs engaged in cross-border economic activities in Albania, Italy and Greece, supplemented by further interviews with key informants, as well as government policy documents. The analysis in this chapter offers important insights into the two main types of entrepreneur, which are ‘necessity’ and ‘opportunity’ entrepreneurs; the emergence of academic entrepreneurship among Albanian transnational entrepreneurs; and the contribution of transnational migrant entrepreneurs in terms of added value at the individual and community levels, as well as potentially impacting on the country’s economic and social development.

Entrepreneurship involves the skills and competencies needed to identify, develop, and exploit opportunities in new or existing ventures. Studies have demonstrated that entrepreneurship can be learned and taught; for this reason, universities and educational institutions have increased the number of courses, concentrations, master programs, majors, and PhD programs, seeking a better impact on their students, graduates, and communities. As the knowledge of entrepreneurship has increased, one of the emerging areas of study is the analysis of the methodologies to accomplish better teaching and learning of entrepreneurship.

This chapter introduces entrepreneurship as a discipline and presents its theoretical evolution and impact on education through different educational approaches: the first approach is related to the entrepreneur; the second to the process; the third focuses on cognition; and the fourth approach, determines the education of entrepreneurship as a method, involving new educational techniques for developing skills through practice, action, and reflection. Then, there is an analysis of how three universities in Mexico, Chile, and Colombia use these teaching approaches in their entrepreneurship programs. Finally, there is a reflection on the new perspectives of entrepreneurship education, the stakeholders involved, and the role that universities, educational institutions, and government play in the transformation of entrepreneurship education.