Search results

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.

In this chapter, we consider the tensions that arise at the intersection of various organizational units (i.e., academic departments, research centers, and administrative areas) and actors (i.e., professors, graduate students, investors, and secular entrepreneurs) that are commonly involved with academic entrepreneurship and the exploration of the entrepreneurial dimensions of science. Using the premises of organizational boundary spanning (e.g., Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Thompson, 1967; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981), we organize our discussion around the role of university entrepreneurship and innovation centers in facilitating and mediating the interorganizational transactions that most often underpin academic entrepreneurship. Specifically, we illustrate and discuss the role university entrepreneurship and innovation centers play in (1) managing the various agendas and expectations of stakeholders within and outside of the academy, (2) providing clarity of purpose to the entrepreneurial endeavor, (3) clarifying ownership rights throughout the entrepreneurial process, and 4) maximizing the potential of individuals to contribute to venture success.

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.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze, from the Latin American thought approach (LTA), the ideas that were produced after World War II on innovation and entrepreneurship in Latin America. It should be mentioned, from now on, that in this approach the topics, phenomena, or problems are always contextualized within a broader problem to be solved, namely that of development. To this end, two axes of analysis are addressed from which the analytical bases, approaches, key concepts, and public policy proposals are located. The first axis explores the proposals related to the development and the idea of the center-periphery model. The second analyzes the role of innovation and entrepreneurship based on the industrialization model, to identify the problems or inadequacies of Latin American entrepreneurship. The proposal emphasizes the need to contextualize entrepreneurship in the broad dimension of development. In this journey, it will be observed that the role of the entrepreneur has been of relevance for the import substitution industrialization (ISI) model in its beginnings by assigning her/him the task of supplying the domestic market by substituting imports, to reduce degrees of dependence in an asymmetric economic world; in the maturity stage of the model, the need for entrepreneurship was affirmed by incorporating innovation. Briefly, we will see that when the model changed, mainly in the 1980s, the firm would assume the role of a resource center for technological accumulation to achieve competitiveness and significantly insert itself in the export market. From Latin America's history in search for development, we can conclude that innovative business entrepreneurship has been less successful and less effective than Latin America requires.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution has escalated innovation to new heights unseen, creating an evolution of innovation and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and as a result, a more Innovative CSR. With this evolution comes also the evolution of the ‘Preneur’ from social entrepreneur to corporate social entrepreneur and corporate social intrapreneur. It is therefore important to acknowledge that social entrepreneurship is not just for the social sector, or start-up entrepreneur – corporations can also be social entrepreneurs. This chapter establishes an understanding of this possibility alongside solving wicked problems and challenges, and how to provide collaborative networks and co-creation experiences to assist others on this journey. More importantly, the chapter discusses how corporates can assist millennials (and Generation Z) by funding and incubating their innovative or social enterprise idea under the umbrella of CSR strategy, until it is ready to be released to the world. The chapter is supported by academic literature and business publications with suggestions for future research opportunities.

Since the 1980s, US universities have greatly increased attention given to innovation and entrepreneurship out of a genuine commitment to enhancing American competitiveness. Although regional innovation and entrepreneurship can be enhanced by universities in multiple ways, the primary metrics of “success” remain patenting, licensing rates, and university spin-outs. While these metrics can be a useful proxy for the entrepreneurial university they tend to understate the many important contributions universities, including non-research intensive universities, make to their regional economies. In this chapter, we introduce a framework of capabilities that are essential to nurturing ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship at the regional level. We then describe the varied ways in which universities can support the development of these capabilities. Finally, we provide a framework of metrics, which can more comprehensively capture the value that universities represent to innovation and entrepreneurship in their regions.

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.