Search results

Entrepreneurial education (EE) has grown rapidly and become important for how we prepare future generations for work. However, a less addressed piece of the puzzle is: who is the entrepreneurial educator? In this paper, our aim draws upon Palmer’s (1998) idea of wholeness, where we seek to connect the two problem spaces of the role diversity of entrepreneurial educators and how the educator is closely tied to the evolutionary development of the domain in constructing signature pedagogies that could cater for the issue of a low capitalization rate.

We problematize on a conceptual level the entry-level personas that have been addressed in prior literature by using the processes of transferability and evolutionary theory to tease out how variability among educators could create antecedents to form a signature pedagogy.

We recognize four archetypes: the experienced entrepreneur, the entrepreneurship scholar, the academic scholar and the pedagogical expert. Our problematization on the variance of the four archetypes provides a fertile ground to engage in addressing “the elephants in the room” in EE, the capitalization rate of graduates and the importance of developing a signature pedagogy, acknowledged in other domains, to enhance legitimacy.

The paper provides a nuanced outlook on who is teaching in the entrepreneurial classroom and problematizes from an evolutionary perspective the potential future paths to continue staying relevant for society as well as justifying our presence as a legit domain in academia.

Entrepreneurship education (EE) is critical for developing the skills of tomorrow's entrepreneurs and leaders. While significant research examines the content, student learning processes and outcomes, less studied are the entrepreneurship educators and their pedagogical preferences. Following a cognitive process model of decision-making, this study explores how self-efficacy, philosophy of teaching, entrepreneurship training and teaching experience influence entrepreneurship educator preferences to follow either a teacher-centric or a student-centric approach. This study also includes gender in a secondary analysis of the relationships.

The data were collected from 289 entrepreneurship educators in 2021, and fuzzy-set comparative qualitative analysis (fsQCA) was used to obtain configurations of conditions (causal recipes) that lead to teacher-centric or student-centric model. A secondary analysis explores whether there are different configurations of conditions when gender is added to the analysis.

The results of our fsQCA analysis reveal multiple configurations of conditions (causal recipes) that result in a preference for either a teacher-centric or student-centric approach to teaching entrepreneurship. The authors find that teaching experience is the main condition for the teacher-centric model, while self-efficacy and entrepreneurship training are the main conditions for the pathways leading to student-centric model. The fsQCA results also show that the configurations are affected when gender is taken into account in the analysis.

This study, one of the first of its kind, uses a configurational approach to examine pathways that contribute to the teaching preferences of entrepreneurship educators. This paper uses self-efficacy, teaching philosophy, teaching experience and entrepreneurship training as conditions to identify multiple unique pathways that result in either a teacher-centric or student-centric pedagogical model in EE. Notably, differences by gender are also found in this study.

This study offers insights into how the entrepreneurship educator (EE) is legitimised in higher education.

This exploratory study is based on content analysis of 73 university programme specifications, 61 university strategies and 35 job advertisements. The study uses Suchman’s (1995) conceptualisation of organisational legitimacy to assist in categorising the results according to type of legitimacy.

Connections are made between the legitimacy of the EE and wider societal discourses surrounding the legitimacy of enterprise/entrepreneurship as expressed in university strategies. Attempts to legitimise the EE specifically, as opposed to “the educator” more broadly understood, are quite limited. Programme specifications mainly offer a cognitive form of legitimacy relating to teaching, with elements of pragmatic legitimacy arising from educators’ links to industry and research prowess. Job descriptions are more focused on the educator’s research as a form of legitimation.

The study creates a baseline of knowledge surrounding the legitimacy of the EE, which raises important questions as to how the educator is supposed to add value in relation to different stakeholders.

The concept of legitimacy, despite widespread application in other disciplines, has found very limited application in the study of EE. Using three sources of data, the paper offers a first application of Suchman’s (1995) conceptualisation of legitimacy to entrepreneurship education. It thereby offers a critical perspective on the role of the EE as shaped by institutional norms.

Despite the considerable increase in research on entrepreneurship education, few studies examine the role of entrepreneurship educators. Similarly, most frameworks from entrepreneurship education recognize the educator’s importance in facilitating instruction and assessment, but the factors influencing the educator role are not well understood. According to the identity theory, personal factors including self-efficacy, job satisfaction and personal values influence the perspective of self, significance and anticipations that an individual in this role associates with it, determining their planning and actions. The stronger the role identity the more likely entrepreneurship educators will be in effectively developing their entrepreneurial skills as well as the overall learning experience of their students. The objective of this study is to pinpoint the factors that affect entrepreneurial role identity.

Drawing upon the identity theory, this study developed a theoretical framework and carried out an empirical investigation involving a survey of 289 entrepreneurship educators across the globe. Structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was applied to analyze and explore the factors that impact the identity of the educators in their role as entrepreneurship teachers.

The findings show that the role identity of entrepreneurship educators is significantly influenced by their self-efficacy, job satisfaction and personal values. Among these factors, self-efficacy and job satisfaction have the most significant impacts on how educators perceive their role. The implications of these results and directions for future research are also discussed.

The novelty of the current study is derived from its conceptualization of the antecedents of role perception among entrepreneurship educators. This study stands out as one of the earliest attempts to investigate the factors that shape an individual’s scene of self and professional identity as an entrepreneurship educator. The significance of comprehending the antecedents of role perception lies in the insights it can offer into how educators undertake and execute their role, and consequently, their effectiveness in teaching entrepreneurship.

Explores the role of the entrepreneurship educator and their place in the entrepreneurship education landscape.

The paper uses an adapted version of Jones and Matlay's (2011) conceptual framework that describes the context of entrepreneurship education to explore the entrepreneurship educator's role. In-depth interviews were conducted with eleven entrepreneurship educators from five universities/university colleges in Denmark.

Illustrates the situated nature of entrepreneurship education. The entrepreneurship educator is embedded in a system of dialogic relationships with a range of stakeholders. This paper provides insights into how the entrepreneurship educator navigates these relationships and the influence these relationships have in determining the scope and nature of the entrepreneurship educator's role.

Provides a framework and findings upon which further studies can build in an area that has hitherto received limited attention. Findings could be compared with those in other geographical contexts, for example. The dialogic relationships themselves could be explored either holistically or individually with other stakeholders (e.g. students, institutions, communities).

Research on the role of the entrepreneurship educator is extremely limited in an area that has otherwise seen a proliferation of research. The adaptation and application of Jones and Matlay's (2011) framework provides a novel way of understanding how this role is shaped. Where most studies focus either on course content or the students, this study proposes another way to gain insight into the complex world of delivering entrepreneurship education.

The contemporary focus on extracurricular activities, here the educational incubator environment, accentuates a need to understand what we offer students in terms of the curricular and extracurricular learning environments when situated in the same higher education institution (HEI). Current research points towards breaking down the invisible barriers and silo thinking. In this conceptual study, we apply the Didaktik triangle as a theoretical and conceptual framing to make comparisons of structurally based conditions for curricular and extracurricular entrepreneurship education (EE). We present a framework that helps bridge the ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ questions in the two different learning spaces and, thereby, conjoin educators and consultants in possible pedagogical discussions on how they work with the students. The suggested bridge frames a wider ‘why’ and adds a more holistic and cohesive view of the two different types of settings. Our study contributes to the literature on how to bridge the blurred lines between curricular and extracurricular activities and break down the silos. The framework can act as an inspiration for entrepreneurship educators and practitioners who wish to provide more suitable and sustainable structures and develop a holistic learning environment.