The Age of Entrepreneurship Education Research: Evolution and Future: Volume 23

Contemporary entrepreneurial education (EE) has global reach and impact, with a growing number of entrepreneurship courses, specializations, and degrees in all parts of the world. There is no longer a question of the significance and demand for EE in the higher education system. At the same time, the interest in scientific knowledge and proven experience of “what works” has accelerated, resulting in a rapid growth in the number of scholars and research-based publications conversing vividly about the field. This chapter elaborates on the historical evolution of EE as a scholarly field. First, an overview of important milestones and major events that shaped the field is provided. Second, by focusing on the development over the last three decades, the authors present an overview of the advances that have occurred within the field in terms of practice, social, and research-based aspects. The historical review shows how EE began in, but gradually separated from entrepreneurship as a field, which can be observed in the development of research outlets, meeting places, and teaching practice. Consequently, this historical review can serve as a point of departure for showing how the field has emerged and how knowledge has been developed and accumulated over time. The authors believe that this review can be helpful for scholars, particularly new entrants such as PhD students and other scholars entering the EE field, to learn from and contextualize their own research-based historical insight.

This conceptual chapter re-actualizes the Didaktik-inspired discussions in entrepreneurship education, initiated by Kyrö, Blenker et al., and Bechard and Toulouse over 15 years ago. Didaktik in the German educational tradition is a pedagogical sub-discipline which, unlike the Anglo-American understanding of “didactics” as teaching methods, focuses on the relations between the subject, teacher, and students, and considers questions regarding what to teach, how to teach, and why, as being interdependent. A review of literature on entrepreneurship education published in the last decades shows that research in the German Didaktik tradition is sparse, and that the awareness of the differences between Didaktik and “didactics” has been overlooked. This chapter has practical implications for entrepreneurship educators as it presents Didaktik as an approach which comprises planning, implementing, and evaluating teaching in a way that includes an awareness of the learners’ relationship to the subject without excluding the teacher’s key role in education. In a theoretical perspective, the chapter challenges the Anglo-American understanding of “didactics” and proposes Didaktik as an approach to developing entrepreneurship education research and practice to be scientifically based in two fields and encompass transformative learning and critical perspectives, rather than being driven by political agendas and focusing on results.

In this chapter, the authors argue that entrepreneurship education (EE) as currently conceived, does little to eradicate gender inequality – rather, its focus on the individual and its neglect of structural impediments and measures tend to reinforce this inequality. The authors discuss why this happens and suggest ways forward. The authors believe the most positive action would be to employ legislation and public policy to change gendered structures and practices which would lead to changes in gendered norms. However, the relationship between norms and structures is mutual. Structural change can only be achieved if existing norms are questioned and this should be the first step toward changing discriminatory structures. The authors argue that in this context EE must include norm critical education. The authors provide some practical examples related to the context of EE.

This chapter considers the role of entrepreneurship theory in the development of ideation techniques for entrepreneurship education. It begins by considering how metatheories impact theory construction in entrepreneurship research and discusses the role of ontology, epistemology, axiology, as well as the role of assumptions about human nature and social change. The chapter presents four different paradigms of thought that apply different philosophies and illustrates how these different paradigms conceptualize entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial opportunity differently. The four paradigms include the equilibrium paradigm, the disequilibrium paradigm, the disruptive innovation paradigm, and the social constructionism paradigm. Within each paradigm, the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity is discussed, and the chapter provides examples to show how different ideation techniques can be generated from these different conceptualizations. Forms of ideation technique are presented and explained, as they relate to each paradigm, and the chapter concludes by explaining the value of these techniques for ideation, opportunity discovery, and creation, in the entrepreneurial process.

This chapter uses the expertise literature (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2018; Ericsson & Pool, 2016) to explore ways that entrepreneurship education might be enhanced through the deliberate practice of specific entrepreneurial behaviors and cognitive skills. What is appealing about the use of expertise methods and theory is the application of very rigorous standards for improving behavioral and cognitive skills that are correlated to better outcomes. The authors suggest that an expertise approach challenges entrepreneurship educators to identify what aspects of the entrepreneurial process might be “deliberately practiced” and to consider modifying aspects of training entrepreneurs to better develop their entrepreneurial capabilities.

This chapter develops an integrated model that encompasses four aspects: (1) face-to-face (F2F), (2) online teaching, (3) massive open online courses (MOOCs), and (4) the combination of Western, localized, and indigenous knowledge to provide blended entrepreneurship education. The model emphasizes the importance of a heutagogical approach and the institutional environment in blended entrepreneurship education. It is then applied to a start-up university to help develop students’ entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial identity aspirations, and entrepreneurial skills. The model’s implications for research and entrepreneurship education are discussed.

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.

Student entrepreneurs account for a considerable number of start-up ventures derived from university settings. Nevertheless, there is little research that demonstrates how university entrepreneurship education (EE) directly influences students’ start-up activities. The primary purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of various types of university entrepreneurship activities (incorporate entrepreneurial courses, extra-curricular initiatives, and start-up support) on student start-up behavior. This quantitative research utilized questionnaire data collected from university students (n = 1,820) in southeast China and was analyzed with hierarchical Poisson regression in STATA procedures. Research results indicate that engaging in any type of university entrepreneurship activities positively predicts students’ start-up activities, yet this positive effect is contingent on students’ prior start-up experience and the overall university entrepreneurial climate. These findings advance our understanding of crucial elements within university entrepreneurial ecosystems and how various entrepreneurship activities within these ecosystems potentially impact students’ venture creation.

The world is changing very rapidly with events that alter the landscape for students during a time when entrepreneurs are needed more than ever. This chapter explores trends in entrepreneurship research that are focused in areas of the entrepreneurial mindset, alleviation of poverty through entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, portfolio thinking about entrepreneurial venture types, the crucial nature of racial diversity, and the drive of women entrepreneurs. It also examines COVID-19’s disparate impact on smaller ventures and Black entrepreneurs, while highlighting its impact on spurring entrepreneurial innovations causing an entrepreneurial explosion. Most importantly, this chapter focuses on how the emerging research trends amidst the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted entrepreneurship educators to enact educational innovations. The chapter includes tools and tips to integrate into the changing nature of university programs and entrepreneurship curriculums facing a dynamic future.