Search results

This chapter begins with a reflection on the call for investigating how entrepreneurial competencies are developed (Bird, 1995) in the context of university-based entrepreneurship centers. Through clarifying the nature of entrepreneurial competencies and applying a social constructivist perspective of learning, it is proposed that effective nurturing of entrepreneurial competencies for university students through entrepreneurship centers shall be based on five key characteristics; namely, active experimentation, authenticity, social interaction, sense of ownership, and scaffolding support. The chapter contributes to the literature through establishing a link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial competencies in the context of university-based entrepreneurship centers, which have become an increasingly popular way for promoting entrepreneurial development. The practical implications on nurturing entrepreneurs through entrepreneurship centers are discussed, together with the directions for further research. This chapter is designed as a refection upon Bird’s original article articulating the concept of entrepreneurial competencies. In this chapter, the author outlines how entrepreneurial competencies can be developed through education programs, specifically via entrepreneurship centers.

This chapter asks how we can understand the managerial practices in open innovation, a recently popularized way of organizing innovative work. Open innovation implies opening up the borders of the organization, creating a context where conventional steering and managerial tools no longer apply. Utilizing a collaborative research approach, following an open innovation collaboration over 8 years, this chapter outlines the managerial practices that direct the collaboration. These practices are important for meaning making and identity creation in the collaboration and can be understood as a form of authorship, a continuous intervention strategy to manage, develop and change the organizational context.

University–industry collaborations are an important driver of innovation that highlights the benefits of collaborative processes across organizational boundaries. However, like in most collaborative processes, many challenges remain when trying to manage the process of knowledge sharing and interaction in university–industry partnerships. In this chapter, the authors specifically investigate how leadership as a managerial dimension facilitates collaboration within university–industry joint laboratories. The authors present an explorative and inductive case study of eight joint laboratories set up by Telecom Italia within five major Italian universities. The results show that the laboratory directors play a crucial role in providing a dynamic and socially active working environment, which is enabled through a process of sensemaking and sensegiving. The authors, moreover, find that this process plays a crucial role by shaping effective communication channels that facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer of information. The authors find that this process ultimately acts as a mediator between charismatic leadership on the individual level and distributed leadership on the collective level.

Neoliberal political leaders such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–1990) and President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) heralded entrepreneurs as capitalist heroes, yet for the most part, the policies they enacted did not help real entrepreneurs. Their image of a self-made entrepreneur who thrives in the absence of government action was fundamentally flawed. Their ideology impaired their ability to promote entrepreneurship because they viewed support for entrepreneurs primarily in negative terms as the removal of government tax and regulatory burdens rather than in positive terms as the cultivation of a dynamic market infrastructure. This article presents this argument in four steps, focusing on the US case: (1) how neoliberal reforms embodied internal contradictions; (2) how reforms to market governance undermined entrepreneurship; (3) how other neoliberal policies also failed to support entrepreneurs; and (4) how policies that violated neoliberal principles, such as industry and technology policies, were actually more supportive of entrepreneurs.

This chapter provides insights into the activities carried out by alumni in the domain of academic entrepreneurship. Given the increasing role of alumni in the support to entrepreneurial learning in universities and the scant evidence about their actual engagement into these initiatives, it explores the alumni organisations affiliated to the population of 58 alumni organisations in 55 higher education institutions (HEI) in Italy, particularly for the activities designed to support entrepreneurship. The authors explore and define services related to entrepreneurship for and from the alumni. Among others, alumni organisations or clubs help members in accessing networks with their peers for career opportunities and role modelling. The authors contribute to the increasing literature about the entrepreneurial university by documenting the activities carried out by alumni organisations to foster entrepreneurship at their parent HEI and promoting an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Universities must take into consideration that peer support can be as important for spreading entrepreneurial initiatives within universities as other more formal supporting measures.

There has been a digital transformation of the sport industry that has resulted in an increase in the number of startups. Technological innovations derived from big data and social media have altered the way entrepreneurship is embedded in a sport context. This has influenced more technologically enabled sport startups that are driving change in the global economy. This chapter discusses the role of digitalization in changing existing business models and fostering a more entrepreneurial ecosystem. This includes focusing on technological innovations such as the impact of cloud computing and other data changes.

This chapter provides an overview of speech-language pathology including education and training requirements of the field of speech-language pathology and the typical role that speech-language pathologists play as members of school-based teams serving children with speech-language-hearing related delays and disorders. A description of the primary areas of treatment is provided along with suggestions for how collaboration with additional team members and families are involved in school-based intervention plans.