Search results

Neurodiversity can be considered a cognitive disability that marginalizes people who experience and interpret the world differently. An estimated 19% of all US college students have disclosed a disability (NCES, 2021). Typical forms of neurodiversity are attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and dyslexia. There is a growing belief that entrepreneurship is well suited for neurodivergent individuals because they can specifically design and control their environments resulting in a better fit and more positive outcomes (Austin & Pisano, 2017). There is also the belief that neurodivergent people’s unique perspectives and “superpowers” lead to new innovative ways of thinking and doing business. These superpowers can allow neurodivergent people to hyper focus and outperform others (Austin & Pisano, 2017).

However, real challenges counter these positive outcomes. For example, while those with ADHD are often drawn to being entrepreneurs because they can quickly initiate, improvise, and seek novelty – their ability to engage in reflection, thoroughness, and efficiency is strained. Thus, ADHD helps and hinders entrepreneurs (Hunt & Verhuel, 2017). The same holds true for other types of neurodiversity.

Entrepreneurship education becomes more nuanced as it matures and grows. An example is the “learn by doing” method of teaching entrepreneurship. Grounded in self-determination and planned behavior theories, “learn by doing” highlights the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness when engaging in entrepreneurship endeavors. Heutagogy (self-guided learning) and andragogy (applied learning) approaches have an effective impact on this type of entrepreneurship pedagogy. However, these open-ended approaches present barriers for neurodivergent learners who need more structure with projects broken down into small steps.

This chapter presents a case study view of how Universal Design for Learning (UDL) frameworks support “learn by doing” approaches to build a neurodivergent-friendly entrepreneurship mindset on campus. It includes a combination of approaches that support executive function (EF) mastery, assessment, and self-development, including multimodal ways of teaching (visual, audio, and kinesthetic), self-regulation, and social interactions. Here, the authors demonstrate how neurodivergent students learn to anticipate, manage, and benefit from their differences using the UDL engagement–regulation–persistence Framework. The lessons shared in this chapter can help entrepreneurship educators see ways various teaching methods can benefits all learners and how the addition of various programs can be more inclusive for neurodivergent students.

China’s social credit system features a central database, the assignment of social credit scores for individuals and businesses, and the meting out of rewards and punishments, including a form of public shaming. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to develop the system in an effort to promote virtue and trustworthiness. While the idea that a government can ‘legislate morality’ is often scorned, it is not one that we dispute. Our focus is on how the social credit system promotes virtue, how the CCP’s thinking compares with that of certain relevant philosophers, and whether the system is in violation of human rights. As we readily acknowledge, there is a sense in which practically all of us face an informal kind of social credit system; as individuals in society, we expect to be subject to a kind of feedback loop in which good behaviour is rewarded and poor behaviour is punished. Yet China’s social credit system is a remarkably centralised kind of effort, and it enables the CCP to play an extraordinarily dominant role in both controlling and contributing to the feedback loop that people and businesses in China face. In harmony with a chorus of human rights groups, we argue that China’s social credit system is indeed in serious danger of violating certain human rights, particularly certain rights relating to freedom of opinion and expression. Moreover, we contend that this human rights critique of the system is reasonably robust because the kind of human rights involved are liberty rights as opposed to rights to goods and services. As we explain, liberty rights tend not to impose a material burden on others, which helps to give them an especially strong claim for recognition as human rights.