Search results

Entrepreneurship teachers (ETs) evolve in an environment where different categories of people interact: students, teachers and stakeholders. Assuming one or more identities or roles, teachers, practitioners, ex-entrepreneurs and/or researchers are the ‘transmitters’¹ of entrepreneurship education (EE). The question of recognition of teachers’ professional status is not always addressed (Hargreaves, 2000). Scientific research in EE shows certain weaknesses (Byrne, Fayolle, & Toutain, 2014; Fayolle, 2013), notably, a lack of interest in questions of (i) the perceived legitimacy of ETs and (ii) the support they receive in carrying out their work (particularly professional development). Taking a decidedly multidisciplinary perspective, this chapter aims to deal with the question of the perceived legitimacy of ETs using a literature review that covers all disciplines having shown an interest in the notion of teacher legitimacy.

The legitimacy of EE depends on the interactions between legitimate instructors and legitimate students in a given context, which respects certain collectively accepted norms. It also depends on the context and the objective of EE. Following the example of a university hospital worker (doctor), ETs can be practitioners, teachers and researchers. Their degree of expertise, position in the institution, positioning in relation to other actors – students, peers, colleagues, institutional and professional stakeholders – and the discourse they use are the elements that constitute their legitimacy.

This chapter primarily aims to revisit and explore the theoretical underpinnings of social entrepreneurship and dwell into what unfolds while amalgamating the conventionally considered to be dissimilar design of business entrepreneurship and the social impact? Can the prefix “social” of social entrepreneurship transform the innate characteristics of entrepreneurship? Is social entrepreneurship an essentiality in a ground-breaking playing field in the business research to facilitate new theories and concepts or a rehash of the corporate responsibility debate? Is it just an appellation or does the underscored social label and its construct allow for new possibility to be explored into the sociality of entrepreneurship along with the new-fangled entrepreneurialism in society? The chapter attempts to decode these more germane and interwoven issues like do we have to tell apart between a capitalist entrepreneurship and a non-capitalist one? Or between pioneering and replicative entrepreneurs. Can we sanctify the political in the social spheres and who (which actors) actually sets the discourse of social needs. The chapter also tracks multiple cases in the Indian locale to determine the robust application of the concept while unpacking the Indian context of social entrepreneurship. These cases are randomly selected from assorted sectors and are wide in its sweep and scope. These cases highlight on the lived experiences, where the task is truly played out. This adds to the sensibilities of new entrepreneurs and policy framers who face the challenges.

The ability to develop and maintain an effective network is an entrepreneurial competency. There are differences in female social networks' features as well as in the way of expanding it comparing to men's. But, there is little attention to female entrepreneurs' networks. This chapter focuses on the dynamics of female entrepreneurs' networks at different stages of the business life cycle. A qualitative study was conducted on a sample of Iranian female entrepreneurs in the trade sector situated in Tehran. The results of data analysis of 10 semi-structured interviews show a considerable change in networking activity over time. Although the most important role of networking for women entrepreneurs in both early-stage and established businesses is to achieve opportunities, information, and resources. Also, the combination of female entrepreneurs' networks is most male-dominated. And the main challenge of networking in the early-stage is being female, while it becomes rather an advantage for established ones. Finally, Iranian female entrepreneurs become more aware of networking benefits over time.

This chapter focuses on how students think before we can teach them how to act. This idea is anchored in the observation that most institutions of higher education tend to teach their students to become employees, whether in the public or private sector, rather than to become employers. Thus, the mindset with which we equip our students is not sensitised to entrepreneurial action. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to propose and illustrate a more comprehensive approach to teaching entrepreneurship, which aims to transform the way that students think about entrepreneurship. In order to achieve this objective, we identify and develop techniques for promoting entrepreneurial awareness and preparedness in our student population, and provide tools for educators to promote the individual’s innate drive to perfect him/herself, thus recognising his/her own need for personal growth. At the theoretical level, we build on the authors’ teaching experiences from different cultural contexts, which show ways in which alternative learning initiatives may enhance enterprising thinking among students. Based on our experiences with the influence of context, we propose that it is necessary to consider seven different, yet interconnected teaching principles, which may influence the impact of entrepreneurship education and which relate to the why; where; when; what and how of entrepreneurship. In continuation, on a practical level, we suggest a coherent system of innovative educational techniques, so-called Verwunderungsübungen, or wonderment exercises, that can be used individually or in combination. By creating a comprehensive teaching paradigm for entrepreneurship we pay tribute to entrepreneurship being an inherently dynamic phenomenon, which goes beyond exclusively focusing on new venture creation.

Entrepreneurship education has been largely treated as a pedagogical “black box.” Despite the emergence of popular entrepreneurship models such as business planning, the lean startup, or business model canvas, neither theoretical nor pedagogical foundations are typically evident. This limits the accumulation of useful evidence that could inform better teaching practices. In this chapter, we develop a set of conceptual models anchored in learning theory regarding how entrepreneurship education should be taught to students. These conceptual models are built on the techniques of entrepreneurship pedagogy such as experiential education. They are developed for three groups of students: students without any entrepreneurship experience, students with previous entrepreneurship experience, and students who are currently running their start-ups. A set of potential variables that could be used for course evaluation purposes is also included. The proposed models meet the needs of students with different levels of entrepreneurship experience. Theoretically, we demonstrate that entrepreneurship students should not be treated as a homogeneous group, as they have different levels of startup experience and different educational needs. Lecturers of entrepreneurship programs could choose the suitable model proposed in this chapter in teaching based on the characteristics of their students. The chapter provides novel insights with regard to how entrepreneurship programs should be designed for students with different levels of entrepreneurship experience.