Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship Training? – Lille – May 13, 14 & 25 2020

Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship Training?

Issues, questions, transformations

Lille – Hauts de France, France

May 13, 14, 15, 2020.

Convocatoria de contribuciones coloquio EEE Lille 2020

Call for papers EEE 2020

Appel à contribution colloque EEE 2020

Argument

Developing Entrepreneurship with education, training and different forms of support currently answers social, ethical, economic, political and educational issues. The education and training fields are directly concerned due to the growing role occupied by Entrepreneurship in our contemporary societies.

However, as Pepin and Champy-Remoussenard point out (2017, 7), the evolution of educational policies and practices associated to entrepreneurship “still remains largely understudied, unknown or misunderstood, mostly in French scientific works on educational issues“. That is why, it is time to gather researchers from different countries to give them the opportunity to discuss and participate in the creation of a specific research field in that domain.

Making understandable, from a scientific viewpoint, the evolution of educational and training practices that aim at developing Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial spirit requires multiple perspectives, given that the object crosses several disciplinary viewpoints (Economy, Management, Education Sciences and Training, Political Sciences, Sociology, History, Philosophy, etc.). Furthermore, this enlightenment deserves to be fed and enriched by the meeting and the dialogue between entrepreneurial researchers and professionals.

The colloquium: Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship Training? Issues, questions, transformations aims to spark, on the one hand, an interdisciplinary discussion between researchers interested in educational entrepreneurship and, on the other hand, a discussion with the professional fields involved in entrepreneurship education (EE), the support and training intended for entrepreneurship’s project leaders. The ambition, on this basis, is double: to set up a dialogue between the actors of this strongly emerging and evolving field; to cross the views, answers and questions that the researchers may bring in a view to lay the foundation for a scientific project to continue.

Currently, the political recommendations, the development of practices, the sociopolitical interest for the role of education and training in developing entrepreneurship bring us to question entrepreneurship education. School entrepreneurship? Educational entrepreneurship? Entrepreneurial education? Entrepreneurship education? Entrepreneurship training? Entrepreneurial culture awareness? The miscellaneous denominations reflect a field of various, emerging and professionalizing educational practices.

The educational practices that intend to develop entrepreneurship aim at many objectives on, at least, two levels:

– some large objectives aiming at promoting the sense of initiative, entrepreneurship, creativity, autonomy, critical thinking, capacities belonging to a same base of knowledge and skills identified as useful for every citizen and that would have a lifelong development thanks to educational and training systems.

– some objectives specific to the development of entrepreneurship, to business culture, to the knowledge required to invest entrepreneurship activities, to create and keep a company active.

In a world dominated by permanent and fast change, the link between education and entrepreneurial spirit appears as a major issue. This is why the expectations and social stakes are strong (Fayolle 2011). Entrepreneurship is a subject increasingly treated by the media and enters into social emergencies and regional, national, international and supranational policy agenda. It is also a part of the European Key Competence (Champy-Remoussenard, 2012, 2018). The impact of the educational efforts made in that field is closely connected to the innovation and adaptation to societal change, vocational guidance and occupational integration, the evolution of types of employment, the pursuit of competitiveness…

There is no doubt that political powers agree at a local, national and international level to say that promoting a culture, which can encourage entrepreneurial initiatives among the population, is mainly the role of educational systems. We can talk about a virtual consensus1.

11 According to the European Eurydice Report (2016), most of the countries in the European network (composed of 33 states) have shared and accepted, in 2014/2015, a European definition of entrepreneurship training. It is based on the 2006 European parliament recommendation on the “sense of initiative and entrepreneurship”

The assumption that the development of practices, policies and measures is a point of education is, nonetheless, questionable from a scientific viewpoint. The mindset and the skills, which may make entrepreneurial initiatives possible, can be entirely or only learnt in the formal system of training. They should be part of a socialization process, of a more complex educational process that needs to be better understood. Moreover, the means do not always follow the policy incentives. Finally, the effects of these educational efforts are not necessarily always known.

Therefore, the scientific view can and must bring a critical and overhanging assessment about policies and activities that have a potential of social change that might be strong.

Organization of the colloquium

This colloquium is initiated by the Inter-University Center for Research in Education of Lille (CIREL), a French research team that has developed research on policies, practices, actors and systems aiming at developing the entrepreneurial spirit. The CIREL (65 titular members, 70 PhD students) is an expert in that field, and conducts research more largely related to the training/employment relationship, the school/company relationship, professional insertion and vocational training.

The colloquium is going to take place in Lille in the Hauts-de-France region, which is the first French area that has been certified as an ‘Enterprising European Region’ in 2013. Close to Paris, Brussels and London, Lille is the main city of the Eurometropole ‘Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai’. The University of Lille is one of the major French universities (70,000 students, a staff of 7,000 people, 70 research laboratories…).

During the colloquium, there will be a specific moment for discussion between the professional communities concerned by the development of Entrepreneurship Education and the researchers interested by it. It will aim at allowing both spheres to express themselves and to discuss the questions that can unify them. Concerning delicate aspects, issues, perspectives and systems that can require a scientific approach, the researchers will try to express their expectations, to identify what can be undertaken in terms of doctoral and postdoctoral research, multidisciplinary research, collaborative practice involving researchers and practitioners.

Professionals who wish to take part in the discussion researchers/professionals during a round table or other forms of exchanges are invited to contact Patricia Champy-Remoussenard (patricia.remoussenard@univ-lille.fr).

 

Thematic focuses

To encourage an interdisciplinary debate on the issue of the current entrepreneurship development by education and training, several themes are being identified in the call for papers.

Five themes will contribute to guide the discussions and the reflections during the colloquium.

The colloquium is opened to any other perspective of analysis in that it enters into a questioning on the educational means intended for stimulating the entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial initiatives. In that cases, formulate clearly in a line the themes you propose.

  1. Origin and development of educational entrepreneurship
  • A history of entrepreneurial practices and of educational entrepreneurship.
  • Evolution and stakes of public policies about educational entrepreneurship.
  1. Epistemology of research on educational entrepreneurship
  • The origin and evolutions of the concepts and representations associated with the entrepreneur, the company and educational entrepreneurship (autonomy, creativity, initiative, action, project, risk, etc.).
  • The access modes and the analysis of the activity or of the entrepreneurial actions? Can we understand the specificity?
  • The history and epistemology of research on educational entrepreneurship.
  • The methods used in research: assessment, perspective, prospective.
  1. Educational entrepreneurship and working life
  • The current transformations of the forms of activity and employment in our society. The increasing power of self-employment in its various manifestations. The emergence of an entrepreneurial society? The impacts on work/training relationships and on the educational system? The company: an educational actor?
  • The actual work of an entrepreneur: Success stories and failures. The forms of companies created and the values carried.
  • The relation to entrepreneurship in the life course: the link between risk taking and personal/professional development in the entrepreneur’s career.
  • The link between the entrepreneurial activity and the entrepreneurial form of activity?
  • The gender issue in entrepreneurial education, in entrepreneurs’ career. Do the systems for entrepreneurial education allow to take into account the question linked to the notion of “the internalization of gender-related professional roles” (Gianettoni, Simon-Vermot & Gauthier, 2010).
  • The links between educational entrepreneurship and vocational guidance. The role of the systems for entrepreneurial education in learner’s vocational guidance.
  1. Entrepreneurship: training and education issues.
  • Can we learn entrepreneurship?
  • The forms of pedagogy linked to entrepreneurship education (active learning, project-based learning, experiential learning, the new educational methods, the social pedagogy) in the speeches and/or in the practice and in the transformations they generate in educational circles.
  • Awareness raising, training, support? What forms does the support to entrepreneurial initiatives for young people and adults (practice, actors, competences, stakes, market) take?
  • The entrepreneurship education’s actors. This field often gathers actors from various backgrounds. The role of teachers in the actions taken. The role of the other actors. Which work division and/or what kind of collaborative work is initiated? What kind of partnerships does the meeting between the different actors generate? The professionalization process of the actors from this scope of practice and the required competences.
  • The systems promoting entrepreneurship in the educational field provide some effects. How do we assess them?
  • What are the subjects of instruction and training associated to entrepreneurship education? Are they specific or not to some curricula, systems, trainings? Are they transversal: the place of transversal skills, key competences in relation to the common bases?
  • Entrepreneurship education is an “education to” that is part of the ‘academic form’ and curricula. To what extent does entrepreneurship education fit in training and education courses or in systems of support?
  • The difficulties and opportunities in developing the entrepreneurial mindset.
  1. At the heart of business creation, creativity in the workplace and innovation?
  • To what extent the entrepreneurial creativity questions other forms of creativity?
  • Entrepreneurship in a future world: what opportunities for social evolutions in and by entrepreneurship, what innovations, what links with the major climatic, environmental challenges, etc.?
  • Do the entrepreneurial education systems allow to develop the learners’ creativity and innovation capacities?
  • What are the values carried by entrepreneurship education? What about training systems? And in the field, once entrepreneurship education has been realized?
  • What are the factors of business creation and of creativity at work (self-efficacy and/or entrepreneurial self-efficacy, self-esteem, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial behavior, etc.)?

 

Colloquium’s scientific officer

Professor Patricia Champy-Remoussenard, CIREL, University of Lille. Professor of Science Education, Project Manager in Entrepreneurship at the University of Lille, in charge of the ‘AERTEF’ master’s degree (second year) Science Education Department.

Organizing committee

Ait M’bark Mohamed, Ph.D. student, University of Lille

Baeza Carole, University Lecturer, University of Lille

Bailleul Michaël, University Lecturer, ESPE Lille-Nord-de-France

Boussadi Sabrina, Hubhouse Project Manager, University of Lille

Casanova Rémi, University Lecturer, University of Lille

Champy-Remoussenard Patricia, University Professor, University of Lille

De Miribel Julien, University Lecturer, University of Lille

Deville Julie, University Lecturer, University of Lille

Lepers Eléonore, Ph.D. student, University of Lille

Pagoni Maria, University Professor, University of Lille

Starck Sylvain, University Lecturer, University of Lorraine

Scientifc committee

Baujard Corinne, Professor of Science Education, University of Lille.

Bedin Véronique, University Lecturer in Science Education, University of Toulouse.

Broussal Dominique, University Lecturer HDR (the French Habilitation is a general requirement for supervising PhD students) in Science Education, UMR EFTS, University of Toulouse.

Danvers Francis, Professor emeritus of Science Education, University of Lille.

Dokou Gérard, Lecturer in Business Administration, EMR UFTS, University of Littoral.

Eneau Jérôme, Professor of Science Education, Rennes 2 University.

Fayolle Alain, Professor of Business Administration, EM Lyon Business School.

Frétigné Cédric, Professor of Science Education, co-chairman of the AECSE.

Giret Jean François, Professor of Science Education, University of Burgundy, Head of the IREDU and of the Training/Employment French review.

Guerrero Maribel, Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, United Kingdom.

Jacques Marie Hélène, University Lecturer HDR (the French Habilitation is a general requirement for supervising PhD students) in Science Education, Researcher in the GRESCOESPE of Niort.

Léger-Jarniou Catherine, University Professor emeritus, University of Paris Dauphine, Chairwoman of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Academy.

Léné Alexandre, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Lille – CLERSE – IMT Lille Douai.

Martinic Sergio, Professor of Anthropology, Academic Director of Aysen University, Patagonia, Chile.

Pagoni Maria, Professor of Science Education, University of Lille.

Pepin Mathias, Assistant Professor, Laval’s Faculty of Business Administration, Quebec.

Pittaway Luke, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Ohio University, United States.

Quenson Emmanuel, Professor of Sociology, Evry Val d’Essone University.

Sanchez Garcia José Carlos, Professor of Psychology, Chair of Entrepreneurship, University of Salamanca, Spain.

Schmitt Christophe, University Professor of Management, Deputy chairman of the University of Lorraine. Chair of Entrepreneurship Department. University of Lorraine,

St Jean Etienne, Full Professor, Research Institute for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, University of Quebec, Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada.

Starck Sylvain, University Lecturer in Science Education, University of Lorraine.

Thievenaz Joris, Professor of Science Education, Paris-Est Créteil University.

Villette Michel, Professor of Sociology, AGROPARISTECH, Researcher in the Center Maurice Halbwachs ENS/EHESS/CNRS.

Zaïd Abdelkarim, Professor of Science Education, ESPE Nord-de-France, CIREL, Lille.

Call for papers

Every researcher or PhD student willing to propose a paper on the occasion of this scientific event has to comply with the three following conditions: posters, oral communications, symposiums. This colloquium aims at promoting an international dialogue. The organization provides for the possibility to communicate in three working languages (French, English, Spanish).

The interested persons are invited to send their proposal according to the below requirements:

  • The posters will be integrated to the colloquium’s programme and exposed for a preset time. They will give a selected aspect of the research presented (improvements or results of a research, the preferred research methodology, etc.). The title, keywords and a 200-300-word abstract about all or parts of the research concerned are expected for June 12, 2019. The poster will be sent in an electronic format according to a presentation scheme that is going to be specified for January 30, 2020.

The oral communications. They last 20 minutes and will be subjected to a presentation during workshops structured around five themes previously mentioned. One or several authors (four at the most) can propose submissions. Every proposal will be composed of a title and a maximum 400-500-word abstract. Every abstract has to specify the goals of the presented research, the preferred methodology, the results and the analysis and discussion items. The proposals shall be sent on June 12, 2019, at the latest. The acceptance of the call will result in the transmission of an up to 50000-sign text for January 30, 2020. The contribution to the colloquium depends on the transmission of this final text.

The symposiums. The person who will submit the proposal of a symposium will be in charge of its coordination and its moderation during the colloquium. Each symposium will last 90 minutes and will be composed of four to five interventions. In each submission, there will be a title and an abstract (max. 500 words) of the symposium’s theme to which the presentations’ headings will be associated together with the names of the contributors. The proposals for the symposium shall be sent on June 12, 2019, at the latest. The acceptance of the symposium will result in the transmission of up to 50000-sign texts for January 30, 2020. The symposium will be held provided the final texts written by the contributors are passed on to the person in charge of the symposium.

 

Important dates
Abstracts to be sent for oral communications and symposiumsJune 12, 2019
Proposals acceptanceSeptember 2019
Full text to be sentJanuary 30, 2020
Opening of registrationsSeptember 2019
Deadline for registrationsMay 1, 2020
ColloquiumMay 13-15, 2020

 

The proposals shall be submitted on the website https://entrepreneurship-education2020.univ-lille.fr/ since May 15, 2019.

CfP – Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference – Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education research and practice

Enhancing entrepreneurship education research and practice: Challenging taken-for granted assumptions and dominant perspectives

Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference and Dialogue Call For Papers.

Convenors and Guest editors

Alain Fayolle – fayolle@em-lyon.com – EMLYON Business School

Michela Loi – michela.loi@unica.it – Department of Economic and Business Sciences – University of Cagliari

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

Pablo Martin de Holan – pmdeh@mbsc.edu.sa – MBS College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Saudi Arabia

2

Financial Times: Do you have any advice to young would-be Entrepreneurs who want to emulate your success?

Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor (Duke of Grosvenor, Chairman of Great Portland Estates, Owner of Grosvenor group): Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror.

Background and objectives of the Dialogue

Entrepreneurship has been taught for over 50 years in business schools, engineering schools and universities worldwide (Katz, 2003; Solomon 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997), and is becoming a core pillar of several Business Schools around the world. Over the years, the teaching of entrepreneurship has developed into a branch of research, namely, entrepreneurship education (EE), the interest of which is to understand what, how and to whom entrepreneurship should be taught (e.g. Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Neck & Green, 2011) and what results should be expected from these kinds of programmes (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Several contributions have focused on the nature of EE as a research field, questioning its maturity and legitimacy (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005) or its standards (Katz, Hanke, Maidment, Weaver, & Alpi, 2016).

EE research is currently facing a particular challenge; not only it lacks academic legitimacy but it is also striving to achieve relevance in practice (Fayolle, Verzat, & Wapshott, 2016). Consequently, and as Fayolle (2013) states, EE needs more robust theoretical and philosophical foundations that draw on both entrepreneurship and education fields to support the development of effective courses and programmes, and to distinguish between those that are, and those that are not.

For instance, the literature in EE often describes the structure and content of entrepreneurship courses and programmes but fails to appropriately question their philosophical and methodological foundations, which might be important if we were to better understand the essence of entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 2016). Another important concern is the vagueness of EE goals (Hoppe, 2016), and, in some cases, its disconnect with larger social forces, such as inequality. Some studies, for example, affirm that EE is becoming increasingly complex as its contexts of application (with respect to the heterogeneity of both the locales where entrepreneurship is taught, but also the type of people who receive EE and the specificities of their backgrounds) are diverse and each of them might be highly peculiar (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016) with boundary conditions that may make generalizations problematic.

This concern concurs with the inherent difficulty of developing effective EE programmes along with the assessment of its results. The impact of EE is, indeed, a relevant issue for several studies in this field (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). Empirical observations reveal contrasting findings in that respect (Walter & Block, 2016), suggesting that multiple truths might coexist regarding the effects of EE on people and territories. This could kindle scholars’ interest in different questions that shift the emphasis from ‘whether’ to ‘when’ or ‘for whom’ EE is effective or ineffective (e.g., Lyons & Zhang, 2018) so as to help determine to what extent entrepreneurship can be taught, what dimensions of it can and should be taught, and with what methodologies. Consequently, we wish to ask a broad question: how should the field develop to tackle these drawbacks and to increase its relevance and impact from a theoretical and practical perspective?

Here, we invite scholars to highlight the taken-for-granted assumptions that beset the field of EE, and to reflect on how to break away from them and move this field forward.

The principal aim of this reflection is to offer new propositions and perspectives that challenge the previous ones, and bring more texture and nuance to the field of EE. In this vein, we would like to open a debate around the major shortcomings of EE and open the space for new questions, new solutions and new research paths to be developed. To this end, we call for papers that embrace a critical approach in discussing their perspectives. By following previous critical approaches in entrepreneurship (e.g., Fayolle, Landström, Gartner, & Berglund, 2016; Frank & Landström, 2016), we consider perspectives that offer alternative ways of knowing and understanding in the field of EE to be critical.

Without limiting the creative insights of those authors who wish to participate in this debate, we highlight three areas that bring together possible ideas to guide scholars to identify and address the assumptions that have been taken for granted in EE: Newness, Diversity and Ethics.1

New ideas have an important role in scientific progress (Kuhn, 1970); they might challenge previous positions and open paths for new questions. In this call for papers, Newness is intended as the fact of not having existed before and includes questions that reflect on what represents innovation for EE. The questions are intended to highlight issues that require a deeper consideration in this field. Examples of these questions are as follows:

  • What is really ‘New’ in EE and why might this newness be of interest to EE? Is “new” systematically better?
  • Is there something that we have forgotten to study?

We claim that Diversity, intended as a range of many people or things that are very different from each other, is a peculiarity of EE. The field stems from and merges together two different scientific domains, namely, education and entrepreneurship. EE is applied in very different contexts (universities vs professional associations); is oriented towards different targets (students, nascent entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs) and has different goals (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Liñán, 2004). While this variety might be a source of richness for new ideas to arise, it might also prevent the process of defining EE objectives and impacts. In this call for papers, Diversity is meant to cover questions that try to address the complexity of EE, to recompose the fragmented puzzle and to make its multiple dimensions more understandable:

  • What is the role, as well as impact, of theoretical and practical diversity in EE?
  • How does diversity in geographical contexts, educational settings, institutions, people, audiences, teachers and programmes influence EE?

Ethics, intended as moral principles or rules of behaviour, becomes a central issue in EE. This is due to its centrality in policymakers’ discourse that emphasises the quality of being entrepreneurial as a resource for the social and economic progress of society. The potential impact of these policies should call scholars to reflect on the influence of their research that is thought to enlighten the political agenda. In this call for papers, Ethics embraces all those questions that reflect on the implications and consequences of EE programmes in relation to their pedagogical approaches, evaluation methods, goals and so on. Possible questions are as follows:

  • Do we think about moral principles and rules when we address the teaching of entrepreneurship? Under what conditions or circumstance EE leads to immoral or amoral behaviours?
  • What does it mean to be ethical when students are taught or educated regarding entrepreneurship? How to educate Ethical Entrepreneurs? How does EE affect ethical intentions and behaviours among students?
  • How do EE teachers and researchers deal with their assumptions that they have taken for granted?

Authors are requested to try to connect these three areas to present an original contribution to the field of EE. Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed.

Process

This call for papers is divided into two parts: an earlier one for a developmental conference, and a second one for the Dialogue itself. Initially, we are inviting scholars to submit manuscripts that are finalized or relatively advanced. Each contribution will be evaluated through a double-blind review process but using a developmental lens: the objective of this initial review is to facilitate the Academic conversation around the theme, and help authors develop their manuscripts.

Accepted contributions and their authors will be invited to be presented and discussed at a mini-conference that will be held in February/March 2019 at the EMLYON Business School (Lyon-France). This conference is developmental in nature, and seeks to ensure that a robust, high-quality academic dialogue emerges among participants around a common conversation. Authors will be invited to present their manuscript and will receive feedback for development. After the conference, the best contributions (a maximum of six) will be invited for inclusion in the Dialogue Section of the Journal of Management Inquiry.

The papers presented for consideration in order to be included at the EMLYON Developmental Conference should adhere to the guidelines of the Journal of Management Inquiry, requiring that manuscripts to conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) (Guidelines for authors can be found here: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/journal-management-inquiry#submissionguidelines).

The papers invited for publication will follow the standard format of JMI´s “Dialogue” section. Please find here additional information about the Journal of Management Inquiry: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi; and a sample of the “Dialogue” section: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/jmia/27/1#sage_toc_section_Dialog

Submission process

  • Paper submission: 31 December 2018
  • Round 1 review: 30 January 2019
  • Mini-conference: February/March 2019
  • Submission of the revised papers: 02 June 2019
  • Selection of the papers: 30 September 2019
  • Publication date: 2020

For any further information, please contact the editors at the email addresses provided above.

References

Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217-254.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.

Fayolle, A., Landstrom, H., Gartner, W. B., & Berglund, K. (2016). The institutionalization of entrepreneurship: Questioning the status quo and re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(7-8), 477-486.

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.

Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.

Frank, H., & Landström, H. (2016). What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 51-75.

Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 13-29.

Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and prospects of entrepreneurship education in the academic context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 403-423.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.

Katz, J. A., Hanke, R., Maidment, F., Weaver, K. M., & Alpi, S. (2016). Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 487-506.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Second Edition). Chicago: University Press of Chicago.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 313-336.

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention–based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11–35.

Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programmes?. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 85-112.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168-182.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216-233.

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges » Roanne, March the 7 and 8 2019

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges »
Roanne,
March the 7 and 8 2019
& Call For Paper Entreprendre & Innover

Entrepreneurship Education rethinking connexions Roanne 2019

(Valerio, Parton and Robb, 2014. Yet, it still faces problems of disciplinary legitimacy (Katz, 2008) ,of teacher’s legitimacy (Foliard, Le Pontois and Fayolle, 2018) or of difficulties in finding its place within the University (Gibb, 2011).

– Even more problematic, the gap between schools or universities and practitioners, entrepreneurs, remains largely open with real difficulties to include EE in an entrepreneurial ecosystem that does not expect advances and development of new behaviors, nor of tools and knowledge. The stakes are high and the connections must be increased and improved to enrich the lessons taken from practice. Research must also be used as an improvement lever through stronger theoretical and methodological bases (Fayolle, Verzat and Wapshott, 2016) to develop critical analysis.

While each of these actors is confronted with its own problems, interconnections can be the basis of contemporary, authentic, and effective teaching programs. However, these interconnections are rare and the literature weakly addresses the links between the members of this triad. Research can play a role in bringing these actors together by showing good practices and by providing analysis and reflexivity. EE remains a hot topic for 2018, particularly for its practical scope and managerial implications (Kuckertz and Prochotta, 2018). The development of initiatives from the private sector and associations to support future entrepreneurs is symptomatic of the situation and it questions the functioning of our organizations. Recent initiatives, such as Ecole 42 and Matrice, support student autonomy by offering non-course and teacher-free programs based on peer learning and coaching.

Our environment is changing very quickly and many initiatives are being launched. Connections between policy makers, EE and practitioners need to be consolidated. The purpose of this call for papers is to prolong the debates around the following main themes:

Practices of entrepreneurship education (EE):

  • EE has been modeled by researchers (eg Béchard & Grégoire 2005, Neck & Greene 2011, Neck, Green and Brush 2014), but little is known about how these models are applied in each educative context. Which objectives (business creation, acquisition of knowledge, skills, entrepreneurial spirit in the broad sense …) are prioritized for which levels and which profiles of learners? What are the pedagogical principles pursued, the underlying educational philosophies and the proposed activities?
  • Can we talk about specific entrepreneurial educational methods to teach, including the construction of opportunities and the confrontation of uncertainty? To what extent does EE make the traditional school form evolve?
  • Do digital tools have a specific role to play in EE? What are the consequences (positive or negative) of their integration into EE activities?
  • Which actors defend and practice EE: which teachers? which external partners? Which directions of establishment? Does the EE make the postures of the teachers evolve, as well as their sense of effectiveness, and their professionalism perceived and recognized?

Assessment and impact measurement of EE:

  • What is the effectiveness and impact of an EE device? How to measure them: which indicators, which process of formative and certificated evaluation, to which temporality (ies)?
  • Does the EE give a specific status to the test, error and failure in the learning process and in the assessment?
  • Under what conditions (objectives pursued, teacher postures, public, insertion into the curriculum, institutional governance …) does the teaching of entrepreneurship make it possible to (re) motivate learners? to (re) engage them in the learning process?
  • Does the EE meet the expectations of public policies in terms of social and professional integration of young people, reduction of unemployment, contribution to economic and local development etc.?

Critical questions about EE:

  • Are the beliefs, values and paradigms underlying educational devices clear to all actors? Which stated or implicit goals make sense for the different actors involved?
  • To what extent can EE be considered as an ideological vehicle for a certain type of educational policy (Verzat, Trindade-Chadeau, and Toutain 2017)?
  • Does EE effectively increase everyone’s power of action or does it insidiously set up a process of social selection that gives the illusion that everyone can become autonomous?
  • How far to consider testing, error and failure in the learning process and in the evaluation system?

The role of researchers and of research in EE:

  • How can scientific studies help entrepreneurship educators? How can we strengthen the link between researchers and educators?
  • What methodological approaches can be used to study the reality of educational practices in entrepreneurship?

This call for papers is an opportunity to connect researchers, practitioners, entrepreneurs, policy makers and entrepreneurship educators, in order to establish a broad overview of innovative pedagogical practices and their impact. It allows a review of recent research for educators, as well as review (s) and interview (s) through an open forum directed to educators, students, entrepreneurs and researchers.

The scientific committee will examine the epistemological, theoretical, empirical and methodological approaches with interest to continue thinking about entrepreneurship education in today’s fast and complex world. Alongside academic papers, more professional-type communications (practices, testimonials, stories, etc.) as well as case studies are also eligible and will be examined with the utmost attention.

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE – EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Entreprendre & Innover

Alain FAYOLLE, emlyon business school, France
Bernard SURLEMONT, HEC-Ecole de Gestion de l’Université de Liège, Belgique
Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe, France
Dominique-Anne MICHEL, Secrétaire générale de la rédaction
Elisabeth GELAS, emlyon business school, secrétaire de rédaction
Franck BARÈS, HEC Montréal, Canada
Fabienne BORNARD, INSEEC Lyon, France
Nathalie CARRÉ, CCI France – CCI Entreprendre en France
Didier CHABAUD, IAE Paris Sorbonne
Jacques-Henri COSTE, université de la Sorbonne, France
Dominique FRUGIER, président d’Alicelab’, secrétaire général de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation
Chrystelle GAUJARD, Groupe Yncréa, Lille, France
Amélie JACQUEMIN, Louvain School of Management, UCL, Belgique
Wadid LAMINE, Toulouse Buisness School, France
Benoît RAUCENT, Université Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, Belgique
Olivier TOUTAIN, ESC Dijon Bourgogne
Olivier WITMEUR, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Belgique

CREE and ENGAGE

Dag Håkon Haneberg NTNU
Fabienne BORNARD INSEEC U
Gunn-Berit Sæter NTNU
Imran QURESHI emlyon business school
Janice BYRNE IESEG School of Management
Joseph TIXIER emlyon business school
Julie FABBRI emlyon business school
Karolina LESNIAK NTNU
Lise Aaboen NTNU
Martine HLADY RISPAL University of Limoges
Michela LOI University of Cagliari
Miruna RADU LEFEBVRE Audencia Business School
Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business
School & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).
Muhammad Imran emlyon business school
Noreen O’SHEA ESCP Europe
Olivier TOUTAIN Burgundy School of Business
Øystein Widding NTNU
Roger SØRHEIM NTNU
Sandrine LE PONTOIS IUT de Roanne
Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School
Stéphane FOLIARD IUT de Roanne
Torgeir Aadland NTNU

GUEST SPEAKERS:

Dr Andrea-Rosalinde HOFER Policy Analyst – Entrepreneurship Policy and Analysis – OECD

Peter BAUR – DG Education and Culture – European Commission

COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES

Extended abstracts will be between 1,000 and 3,000 words in French or English. They will specify the problem and the interest of the research, the theoretical framework(s), the methodology, the envisaged results, the potential contribution. They are to be sent exclusively in PDF and anonymous format to: stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr

SAVE THE DATE

Sending extended summaries October the 31 2018
Response of the Scientific Committee December the 15 2018
Sending complete communications February the 10 2019
Deadline for registration

Special issue publication
March the 1st 2019
Summer 2019

OPPORTUNITY OF PUBLICATION
The best original texts responding to the main theme allowing a dialogue between practitioners and researchers (be careful to respect the instructions to the authors of this review that will be transmitted to the participants) and retained by the Scientific Committee will be proposed to the journal Entreprendre & Innover (classified category 4 FNEGE) for a special issue devoted to EE (Editors: Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe Business School Paris, Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School, Stéphane FOLIARD, Jean Monnet University, St-Etienne , Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business School & University Grenoble Alpes (CERAG)). They will be peer reviewed according to the rules of double blind procedures.

VALORISATION OPPORTUNITY
In order to promote and spread the work as widely as possible, we are organizing a TEDx University on Friday, on March 8th 2019 in the afternoon. Speakers will present and disseminate their ideas. The principle of TEDx is to popularize to spread the worth ideas widely. The subject will have to be simplified and the presentations should last for 18 minutes maximum. The number of speakers will be between 6 and 10.

PRACTICAL INFORMATIONS
Registration fee: 160 Euros (including material, coffee breaks, meals), 80 Euros for PhD students.
City informations of Roanne:
http://leroannais.com/

CONTACTS
stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr 0033 6 08 73 51 16
and sandrine.lepontois@univ-st-etienne.fr

QUOTED REFERENCES
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The case of higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22-43.
Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417-430.
Carrier C. (2009). « L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat: au-delà des cours magistraux, des études de cas et du plan d’affaires ». Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 8, no 2, p. 17-33.
Commission Européenne (2013). Plan d’action « Entrepreneuriat 2020 » Raviver l’esprit d’entreprise en Europe, Bruxelles.
Eynon R. (2013) “The rise of Big Data: what does it mean for education, technology, and media research?”. Learning, Media and Technology, 38:3, 237-240
Fayolle A., Verzat C. et Wapshott R. (2016). “In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research”. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.
Fayolle A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.
Foliard, S., Le Pontois, S., Fayolle, A. (2018). “The Legitimacy of Teachers in Entrepreneurship Education: What we Can Learn From a Literature Review” in “Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking through Multi voices, reflections on emerging debates” edited by David Higgins, Paul Jones and Pauric McGowan. To be published
Günzel-Jensen, F., & Robinson, S. (2017). Effectuation in the undergraduate classroom: Three barriers to entrepreneurial learning. Education+ Training, 59(7/8), 780-796.
Katz J. A. (2008). “Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.
Kuckertz A. et Prochotta A. (2018). « What’s Hot in Entrepreneurship Research 2018?” Hohenheim Entrepreneurship Research Brief No. 4 – February
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. & Brush, C.G (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship, A Practice-Based Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing : Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA
Paul, M. (2002). L’accompagnement: une nébuleuse. Éducation permanente, 153(4), 43-56.
Rideout E. C. et Gray D. O. (2013). “Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university‐based entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 51, no 3, p. 329- 351.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35(1), 113-135.
Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and training programs around the world: dimensions for success. World Bank Publications.
Verzat, C., Trindade-Chadeau, A. & Toutain, O. (2017). Introduction: Promesses et réalités de l’entrepreneuriat des jeunes. Agora débats/jeunesses, 75,(1), 57-72. doi:10.3917/agora.075.0057.

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges » Roanne, March the 7 and 8 2019

« Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections: Opportunities and Challenges »
Roanne,
March the 7 and 8 2019
& Call For Paper Entreprendre & Innover

Entrepreneurship Education rethinking connexions Roanne 2019

(Valerio, Parton and Robb, 2014. Yet, it still faces problems of disciplinary legitimacy (Katz, 2008) ,of teacher’s legitimacy (Foliard, Le Pontois and Fayolle, 2018) or of difficulties in finding its place within the University (Gibb, 2011).

– Even more problematic, the gap between schools or universities and practitioners, entrepreneurs, remains largely open with real difficulties to include EE in an entrepreneurial ecosystem that does not expect advances and development of new behaviors, nor of tools and knowledge. The stakes are high and the connections must be increased and improved to enrich the lessons taken from practice. Research must also be used as an improvement lever through stronger theoretical and methodological bases (Fayolle, Verzat and Wapshott, 2016) to develop critical analysis.

While each of these actors is confronted with its own problems, interconnections can be the basis of contemporary, authentic, and effective teaching programs. However, these interconnections are rare and the literature weakly addresses the links between the members of this triad. Research can play a role in bringing these actors together by showing good practices and by providing analysis and reflexivity. EE remains a hot topic for 2018, particularly for its practical scope and managerial implications (Kuckertz and Prochotta, 2018). The development of initiatives from the private sector and associations to support future entrepreneurs is symptomatic of the situation and it questions the functioning of our organizations. Recent initiatives, such as Ecole 42 and Matrice, support student autonomy by offering non-course and teacher-free programs based on peer learning and coaching.

Our environment is changing very quickly and many initiatives are being launched. Connections between policy makers, EE and practitioners need to be consolidated. The purpose of this call for papers is to prolong the debates around the following main themes:

Practices of entrepreneurship education (EE):

  • EE has been modeled by researchers (eg Béchard & Grégoire 2005, Neck & Greene 2011, Neck, Green and Brush 2014), but little is known about how these models are applied in each educative context. Which objectives (business creation, acquisition of knowledge, skills, entrepreneurial spirit in the broad sense …) are prioritized for which levels and which profiles of learners? What are the pedagogical principles pursued, the underlying educational philosophies and the proposed activities?
  • Can we talk about specific entrepreneurial educational methods to teach, including the construction of opportunities and the confrontation of uncertainty? To what extent does EE make the traditional school form evolve?
  • Do digital tools have a specific role to play in EE? What are the consequences (positive or negative) of their integration into EE activities?
  • Which actors defend and practice EE: which teachers? which external partners? Which directions of establishment? Does the EE make the postures of the teachers evolve, as well as their sense of effectiveness, and their professionalism perceived and recognized?

Assessment and impact measurement of EE:

  • What is the effectiveness and impact of an EE device? How to measure them: which indicators, which process of formative and certificated evaluation, to which temporality (ies)?
  • Does the EE give a specific status to the test, error and failure in the learning process and in the assessment?
  • Under what conditions (objectives pursued, teacher postures, public, insertion into the curriculum, institutional governance …) does the teaching of entrepreneurship make it possible to (re) motivate learners? to (re) engage them in the learning process?
  • Does the EE meet the expectations of public policies in terms of social and professional integration of young people, reduction of unemployment, contribution to economic and local development etc.?

 

Critical questions about EE:

  • Are the beliefs, values and paradigms underlying educational devices clear to all actors? Which stated or implicit goals make sense for the different actors involved?
  • To what extent can EE be considered as an ideological vehicle for a certain type of educational policy (Verzat, Trindade-Chadeau, and Toutain 2017)?
  • Does EE effectively increase everyone’s power of action or does it insidiously set up a process of social selection that gives the illusion that everyone can become autonomous?
  • How far to consider testing, error and failure in the learning process and in the evaluation system?

 

The role of researchers and of research in EE:

  • How can scientific studies help entrepreneurship educators? How can we strengthen the link between researchers and educators?
  • What methodological approaches can be used to study the reality of educational practices in entrepreneurship?

 

This call for papers is an opportunity to connect researchers, practitioners, entrepreneurs, policy makers and entrepreneurship educators, in order to establish a broad overview of innovative pedagogical practices and their impact. It allows a review of recent research for educators, as well as review (s) and interview (s) through an open forum directed to educators, students, entrepreneurs and researchers.

The scientific committee will examine the epistemological, theoretical, empirical and methodological approaches with interest to continue thinking about entrepreneurship education in today’s fast and complex world. Alongside academic papers, more professional-type communications (practices, testimonials, stories, etc.) as well as case studies are also eligible and will be examined with the utmost attention.

 

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE – EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Entreprendre & Innover

Alain FAYOLLE, emlyon business school, France
Bernard SURLEMONT, HEC-Ecole de Gestion de l’Université de Liège, Belgique
Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe, France
Dominique-Anne MICHEL, Secrétaire générale de la rédaction
Elisabeth GELAS, emlyon business school, secrétaire de rédaction
Franck BARÈS, HEC Montréal, Canada
Fabienne BORNARD, INSEEC Lyon, France
Nathalie CARRÉ, CCI France – CCI Entreprendre en France
Didier CHABAUD, IAE Paris Sorbonne
Jacques-Henri COSTE, université de la Sorbonne, France
Dominique FRUGIER, président d’Alicelab’, secrétaire général de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat et de l’Innovation
Chrystelle GAUJARD, Groupe Yncréa, Lille, France
Amélie JACQUEMIN, Louvain School of Management, UCL, Belgique
Wadid LAMINE, Toulouse Buisness School, France
Benoît RAUCENT, Université Catholique de Louvain la Neuve, Belgique
Olivier TOUTAIN, ESC Dijon Bourgogne
Olivier WITMEUR, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Belgique

 

CREE and ENGAGE

Dag Håkon Haneberg NTNU
Fabienne BORNARD INSEEC U
Gunn-Berit Sæter NTNU
Imran QURESHI emlyon business school
Janice BYRNE IESEG School of Management
Joseph TIXIER emlyon business school
Julie FABBRI emlyon business school
Karolina LESNIAK NTNU
Lise Aaboen NTNU
Martine HLADY RISPAL University of Limoges
Michela LOI University of Cagliari
Miruna RADU LEFEBVRE Audencia Business School
Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business
School & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).
Muhammad Imran emlyon business school
Noreen O’SHEA ESCP Europe
Olivier TOUTAIN Burgundy School of Business
Øystein Widding NTNU
Roger SØRHEIM NTNU
Sandrine LE PONTOIS IUT de Roanne
Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School
Stéphane FOLIARD IUT de Roanne
Torgeir Aadland NTNU

GUEST SPEAKERS:

Dr Andrea-Rosalinde HOFER Policy Analyst – Entrepreneurship Policy and Analysis – OECD

Peter BAUR – DG Education and Culture – European Commission

COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES

Extended abstracts will be between 1,000 and 3,000 words in French or English. They will specify the problem and the interest of the research, the theoretical framework(s), the methodology, the envisaged results, the potential contribution. They are to be sent exclusively in PDF and anonymous format to: stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr

SAVE THE DATE

Sending extended summaries October the 31 2018
Response of the Scientific Committee December the 15 2018
Sending complete communications February the 10 2019
Deadline for registration

Special issue publication
March the 1st 2019
Summer 2019

OPPORTUNITY OF PUBLICATION
The best original texts responding to the main theme allowing a dialogue between practitioners and researchers (be careful to respect the instructions to the authors of this review that will be transmitted to the participants) and retained by the Scientific Committee will be proposed to the journal Entreprendre & Innover (classified category 4 FNEGE) for a special issue devoted to EE (Editors: Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe Business School Paris, Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, EM-Lyon Business School, Stéphane FOLIARD, Jean Monnet University, St-Etienne , Mohsen TAVAKOLI, EM-Lyon Business School & University Grenoble Alpes (CERAG)). They will be peer reviewed according to the rules of double blind procedures.

VALORISATION OPPORTUNITY
In order to promote and spread the work as widely as possible, we are organizing a TEDx University on Friday, on March 8th 2019 in the afternoon. Speakers will present and disseminate their ideas. The principle of TEDx is to popularize to spread the worth ideas widely. The subject will have to be simplified and the presentations should last for 18 minutes maximum. The number of speakers will be between 6 and 10.

PRACTICAL INFORMATIONS
Registration fee: 160 Euros (including material, coffee breaks, meals), 80 Euros for PhD students.
City informations of Roanne:
http://leroannais.com/

CONTACTS
stephane.foliard@univ-st-etienne.fr 0033 6 08 73 51 16
and sandrine.lepontois@univ-st-etienne.fr

QUOTED REFERENCES
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The case of higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22-43.
Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417-430.
Carrier C. (2009). « L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat: au-delà des cours magistraux, des études de cas et du plan d’affaires ». Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 8, no 2, p. 17-33.
Commission Européenne (2013). Plan d’action « Entrepreneuriat 2020 » Raviver l’esprit d’entreprise en Europe, Bruxelles.
Eynon R. (2013) “The rise of Big Data: what does it mean for education, technology, and media research?”. Learning, Media and Technology, 38:3, 237-240
Fayolle A., Verzat C. et Wapshott R. (2016). “In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research”. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.
Fayolle A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.
Foliard, S., Le Pontois, S., Fayolle, A. (2018). “The Legitimacy of Teachers in Entrepreneurship Education: What we Can Learn From a Literature Review” in “Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking through Multi voices, reflections on emerging debates” edited by David Higgins, Paul Jones and Pauric McGowan. To be published
Günzel-Jensen, F., & Robinson, S. (2017). Effectuation in the undergraduate classroom: Three barriers to entrepreneurial learning. Education+ Training, 59(7/8), 780-796.
Katz J. A. (2008). “Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.
Kuckertz A. et Prochotta A. (2018). « What’s Hot in Entrepreneurship Research 2018?” Hohenheim Entrepreneurship Research Brief No. 4 – February
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.
Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. & Brush, C.G (2014) Teaching Entrepreneurship, A Practice-Based Approach, Edward Elgar Publishing : Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA
Paul, M. (2002). L’accompagnement: une nébuleuse. Éducation permanente, 153(4), 43-56.
Rideout E. C. et Gray D. O. (2013). “Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university‐based entrepreneurship education”. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 51, no 3, p. 329- 351.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 35(1), 113-135.
Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and training programs around the world: dimensions for success. World Bank Publications.
Verzat, C., Trindade-Chadeau, A. & Toutain, O. (2017). Introduction: Promesses et réalités de l’entrepreneuriat des jeunes. Agora débats/jeunesses, 75,(1), 57-72. doi:10.3917/agora.075.0057.

CfP – Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference – Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education research and practice

Enhancing entrepreneurship education research and practice: Challenging taken-for granted assumptions and dominant perspectives

Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference and Dialogue Call For Papers.

Convenors and Guest editors

Alain Fayolle – fayolle@em-lyon.com – EMLYON Business School

Michela Loi – michela.loi@unica.it – Department of Economic and Business Sciences – University of Cagliari

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

Pablo Martin de Holan – pmdeh@mbsc.edu.sa – MBS College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Saudi Arabia

2

Financial Times: Do you have any advice to young would-be Entrepreneurs who want to emulate your success?

Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor (Duke of Grosvenor, Chairman of Great Portland Estates, Owner of Grosvenor group): Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror.

 

Background and objectives of the Dialogue

Entrepreneurship has been taught for over 50 years in business schools, engineering schools and universities worldwide (Katz, 2003; Solomon 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997), and is becoming a core pillar of several Business Schools around the world. Over the years, the teaching of entrepreneurship has developed into a branch of research, namely, entrepreneurship education (EE), the interest of which is to understand what, how and to whom entrepreneurship should be taught (e.g. Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Neck & Green, 2011) and what results should be expected from these kinds of programmes (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Several contributions have focused on the nature of EE as a research field, questioning its maturity and legitimacy (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005) or its standards (Katz, Hanke, Maidment, Weaver, & Alpi, 2016).

EE research is currently facing a particular challenge; not only it lacks academic legitimacy but it is also striving to achieve relevance in practice (Fayolle, Verzat, & Wapshott, 2016). Consequently, and as Fayolle (2013) states, EE needs more robust theoretical and philosophical foundations that draw on both entrepreneurship and education fields to support the development of effective courses and programmes, and to distinguish between those that are, and those that are not.

For instance, the literature in EE often describes the structure and content of entrepreneurship courses and programmes but fails to appropriately question their philosophical and methodological foundations, which might be important if we were to better understand the essence of entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 2016). Another important concern is the vagueness of EE goals (Hoppe, 2016), and, in some cases, its disconnect with larger social forces, such as inequality. Some studies, for example, affirm that EE is becoming increasingly complex as its contexts of application (with respect to the heterogeneity of both the locales where entrepreneurship is taught, but also the type of people who receive EE and the specificities of their backgrounds) are diverse and each of them might be highly peculiar (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016) with boundary conditions that may make generalizations problematic.

This concern concurs with the inherent difficulty of developing effective EE programmes along with the assessment of its results. The impact of EE is, indeed, a relevant issue for several studies in this field (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). Empirical observations reveal contrasting findings in that respect (Walter & Block, 2016), suggesting that multiple truths might coexist regarding the effects of EE on people and territories. This could kindle scholars’ interest in different questions that shift the emphasis from ‘whether’ to ‘when’ or ‘for whom’ EE is effective or ineffective (e.g., Lyons & Zhang, 2018) so as to help determine to what extent entrepreneurship can be taught, what dimensions of it can and should be taught, and with what methodologies. Consequently, we wish to ask a broad question: how should the field develop to tackle these drawbacks and to increase its relevance and impact from a theoretical and practical perspective?

Here, we invite scholars to highlight the taken-for-granted assumptions that beset the field of EE, and to reflect on how to break away from them and move this field forward.

The principal aim of this reflection is to offer new propositions and perspectives that challenge the previous ones, and bring more texture and nuance to the field of EE. In this vein, we would like to open a debate around the major shortcomings of EE and open the space for new questions, new solutions and new research paths to be developed. To this end, we call for papers that embrace a critical approach in discussing their perspectives. By following previous critical approaches in entrepreneurship (e.g., Fayolle, Landström, Gartner, & Berglund, 2016; Frank & Landström, 2016), we consider perspectives that offer alternative ways of knowing and understanding in the field of EE to be critical.

Without limiting the creative insights of those authors who wish to participate in this debate, we highlight three areas that bring together possible ideas to guide scholars to identify and address the assumptions that have been taken for granted in EE: Newness, Diversity and Ethics.1

New ideas have an important role in scientific progress (Kuhn, 1970); they might challenge previous positions and open paths for new questions. In this call for papers, Newness is intended as the fact of not having existed before and includes questions that reflect on what represents innovation for EE. The questions are intended to highlight issues that require a deeper consideration in this field. Examples of these questions are as follows:

  • What is really ‘New’ in EE and why might this newness be of interest to EE? Is “new” systematically better?
  • Is there something that we have forgotten to study?

 

We claim that Diversity, intended as a range of many people or things that are very different from each other, is a peculiarity of EE. The field stems from and merges together two different scientific domains, namely, education and entrepreneurship. EE is applied in very different contexts (universities vs professional associations); is oriented towards different targets (students, nascent entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs) and has different goals (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Liñán, 2004). While this variety might be a source of richness for new ideas to arise, it might also prevent the process of defining EE objectives and impacts. In this call for papers, Diversity is meant to cover questions that try to address the complexity of EE, to recompose the fragmented puzzle and to make its multiple dimensions more understandable:

  • What is the role, as well as impact, of theoretical and practical diversity in EE?
  • How does diversity in geographical contexts, educational settings, institutions, people, audiences, teachers and programmes influence EE?

 

Ethics, intended as moral principles or rules of behaviour, becomes a central issue in EE. This is due to its centrality in policymakers’ discourse that emphasises the quality of being entrepreneurial as a resource for the social and economic progress of society. The potential impact of these policies should call scholars to reflect on the influence of their research that is thought to enlighten the political agenda. In this call for papers, Ethics embraces all those questions that reflect on the implications and consequences of EE programmes in relation to their pedagogical approaches, evaluation methods, goals and so on. Possible questions are as follows:

  • Do we think about moral principles and rules when we address the teaching of entrepreneurship? Under what conditions or circumstance EE leads to immoral or amoral behaviours?
  • What does it mean to be ethical when students are taught or educated regarding entrepreneurship? How to educate Ethical Entrepreneurs? How does EE affect ethical intentions and behaviours among students?
  • How do EE teachers and researchers deal with their assumptions that they have taken for granted?

Authors are requested to try to connect these three areas to present an original contribution to the field of EE. Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed.

 

Process

This call for papers is divided into two parts: an earlier one for a developmental conference, and a second one for the Dialogue itself. Initially, we are inviting scholars to submit manuscripts that are finalized or relatively advanced. Each contribution will be evaluated through a double-blind review process but using a developmental lens: the objective of this initial review is to facilitate the Academic conversation around the theme, and help authors develop their manuscripts.

Accepted contributions and their authors will be invited to be presented and discussed at a mini-conference that will be held in February/March 2019 at the EMLYON Business School (Lyon-France). This conference is developmental in nature, and seeks to ensure that a robust, high-quality academic dialogue emerges among participants around a common conversation. Authors will be invited to present their manuscript and will receive feedback for development. After the conference, the best contributions (a maximum of six) will be invited for inclusion in the Dialogue Section of the Journal of Management Inquiry.

The papers presented for consideration in order to be included at the EMLYON Developmental Conference should adhere to the guidelines of the Journal of Management Inquiry, requiring that manuscripts to conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) (Guidelines for authors can be found here: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/journal-management-inquiry#submissionguidelines).

The papers invited for publication will follow the standard format of JMI´s “Dialogue” section. Please find here additional information about the Journal of Management Inquiry: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi; and a sample of the “Dialogue” section: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/jmia/27/1#sage_toc_section_Dialog

 

Submission process

  • Paper submission: 31 December 2018
  • Round 1 review: 30 January 2019
  • Mini-conference: February/March 2019
  • Submission of the revised papers: 02 June 2019
  • Selection of the papers: 30 September 2019
  • Publication date: 2020

For any further information, please contact the editors at the email addresses provided above.

 

 

References

Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217-254.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.

Fayolle, A., Landstrom, H., Gartner, W. B., & Berglund, K. (2016). The institutionalization of entrepreneurship: Questioning the status quo and re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(7-8), 477-486.

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.

Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.

Frank, H., & Landström, H. (2016). What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 51-75.

Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 13-29.

Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and prospects of entrepreneurship education in the academic context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 403-423.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.

Katz, J. A., Hanke, R., Maidment, F., Weaver, K. M., & Alpi, S. (2016). Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 487-506.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Second Edition). Chicago: University Press of Chicago.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 313-336.

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention–based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11–35.

Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programmes?. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 85-112.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168-182.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216-233.

Special issue call for papers EBRSpecial issue call for papers IJEBR – Filling in the Blanks: ‘Black Boxes’ in Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Education

Filling in the Blanks: ‘Black Boxes’ in Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Education


Special issue call for papers from International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research

Aims & Scope
The number of programmes and courses offered in entrepreneurship has exploded in the past couple of decades (Kuratko, 2005; Katz, 2003; 2008; Nabi et al 2016). Corresponding to this growth in educational programmes, entrepreneurship education research has become a field in its own right (Fayolle et al., 2006, Pittaway and Cope, 2007a, Fayolle, 2007; Fayolle and Kyrö, 2008, Neck and Green, 2011). Indeed, existing studies have been particularly adept in examining different forms of pedagogy (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a) and the way that entrepreneurship education influences students’ propensity for, and intentions of entrepreneurship (Bae et al., 2014). However, entrepreneurship education research is still a young scholarly field that struggles for legitimacy (Fayolle, 2013), and there are needs for more robust intellectual foundations that can inform and advance the current knowledge base, both at theoretical and methodological levels (Pittaway and Cope, 2007a; Fayolle, Verzat & Wapshott, 2016). In this respect, a number of topics remain un(der)explored that we perceive as ‘black boxes’ in entrepreneurship education. They include but are not limited to the following:

First, research into how entrepreneurship education contributes to the development of active, employable, and entrepreneurial citizens remains scarce. Indeed, we know far too little about the variability of outcomes of student learning, both in the short and the long-term. Furthermore, while experiential forms of learning are often taken for granted in entrepreneurship education, there is a need for research on different learning approaches (including experiential and transformational) and how these approaches may help foster learning (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). Research is also needed on how individuals are involved with different types of educational experiences and interventions, as well as explorations of differences in motivations for and immersion in entrepreneurship education and learning (Kassean et al, 2015). We would like to see research that takes into account differences among individuals as learners (Corbett, 2007; Politis and Gabrielsson, 2015). Contributions that investigate the ways that entrepreneurial competencies are developed, that is, offering insights into “how, when, why and what” entrepreneurial competencies are learned over time (and in particular circumstances – see the next “black box”) are particularly welcomed (Lackeus, 2015).

Second, the impact of context is a topic that is rarely addressed in the entrepreneurship education literature compared to what is found in entrepreneurship research, overall (Welter, 2011; Welter at al., 2016). For example, the role of institutions and regulations set up by governments and universities remains underexplored (Walter and Block, 2016). However, context clearly plays an important role in what is possible, achievable, and appropriate in entrepreneurship education (Urban and Kujinga, 2017; Refai and Klapper, 2016). We would like to see submissions that investigate and critically assess how context (broadly defined) limits or facilitates the kinds of opportunities and challenges that educators and students encounter.  Besides institutional and cultural aspects of context, we seek manuscripts that might explore such questions as: What role does space and place play in the unfolding of entrepreneurial learning?  How are tensions between freedom and creativity on one hand and control and accountability on the other recognized and “managed” in entrepreneurial learning?

Third, entrepreneurship education seems to exist in a vacuum, that is, it fails to recognize a broad and deep literature about the nature of learning and pedagogical innovation (Fayolle, et al., 2016), even though many of the approaches used in entrepreneurship education have a long history in educational science (Fayolle, 2013). For example, entrepreneurship education often draws on notions of experiential and transformational learning, reinterpreting these in an entrepreneurship/ enterprise context. We also tend to borrow liberally from psychology when trying to understand student behaviour (e.g., Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Wilson et al., 2007) and from e.g. design-thinking or action learning to devise learning activities (Rae, 2012). Therefore, we would encourage contributions that address and even problematize the cross-fertilization that takes place between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning and insights into learning and education from other disciplines.

Finally, intentions and self-efficacy measures have traditionally been a major focus for exploring the outcomes of entrepreneurship education (Nabi et al., 2015).  We encourage submissions that would evaluate other kinds of outcome measures, particularly research that explores how entrepreneurship education impacts the behaviours of individuals engaged in entrepreneurship. We are looking for contributions that use innovative samples and/or methodologies to collect and analyze the data on a broad range of entrepreneurial activities and outcomes. We welcome research needs that addresses how the impact of entrepreneurship education is measured, particularly research that might capture possible unintended or adverse outcomes of entrepreneurship education. Longitudinal approaches for studying entrepreneurship education and learning are of particular interest. Most research in entrepreneurship education tends to focus on samples from single universities, so we would welcome comparisons of university programmes or comparisons of university programmes with other forms of training programmes. We also encourage research that aims at developing new ways to measure the impact of entrepreneurship education.

We would like to encourage a diversity of methods and approaches to tackle the above issues as some black boxes lend themselves better to either conceptual, qualitative or quantitative designs, and we will be open to novel approaches. However, we will stress rigour and transparency, so we encourage contributions that incorporate recent methodological advances (e.g. Gioia et al, 2012).

Submission Guidelines:

All submissions are subject to the standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at any other outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for the journal. Submission must be made through the ScholarOne site at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijebr by April 30th 2018.Submissions should be prepared according to the Author Guidelines found at http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=ijebr
When submitting your manuscript, please ensure you select this special issue from the relevant drop-down menu. Reviews will be conducted through mid to late-2018, aiming at publication for those accepted expected in late 2019.

Initial inquiries can be directed to any of the Guest Editors at the following email addresses:
Helle Neergaard (Helle.Neergaard@mgmt.au.dk)
William B. Gartner (wgartner@babson.edu)
Ulla Hytti (ullhyt@utu.fi)
Diamanto Politis (diamanto.politis@fek.lu.se)
David Rae (david.rae@bishopg.ac.uk)

REFERENCES
Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C. & Fiet, J. O. (2014) The Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta‐analytic Review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2) 217-254
Corbett, A.C. (2007) Learning Asymmetries and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.  Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1) 97–118.
Fayolle, A. (Ed.). (2007) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: A General Perspective (Vol. 1). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
Fayolle, A. (2013) Personal Views on the Future of Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8) 692-701
Fayolle, A. & Kyrö. P. (Eds) (2008) The Dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes: A new Methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9) 701-720
Fayolle, A., Verzat, C. & Wapshott, R. (2016) In Quest of Legitimacy: The Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of Entrepreneurship Education Research, International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904
Gioia, D A; Kevin G. Co; Hamilton, A L. (2012) Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1) 15-31.
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Ligouri, E. & Winkel, D.E. (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Need for Reflection, Real-world Experience and Action. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 21(5) 690-708
Katz, J. A. (2003) The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2) 283-300.
Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993) Entrepreneurial Intentions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4) 315-330
Lackeus, M (2015) Entrepreneurship in Education: What, why, when, how. Entrepreneurship360. Background Paper. OECD
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N. & Walmsley, A. (2016) The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, amle-2015
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011) Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1) 55-70
Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007a) Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5) 479-510
Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007b) Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning: Integrating experiential and Collaborative Approaches to Learning. Management Learning, 38(2) 211-233
Politis, D. & Gabrielsson, J. (2015) Modes of Learning and Entrepreneurial Knowledge. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 18(1) 101-122
Rae, D (2012) Action Learning in New Creative Ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 18(5) 603-623
Refai, D. & Klapper, R. (2016) Enterprise Education in Pharmacy Schools: Experiential Learning in Institutionally Constrained Contexts. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 22(4) 485-509
Urban, B & Kujinga, L (2017) The Institutional  Environment and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(4) 638-655
Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016) Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education: An Institutional Perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2) 216-233
Welter, F. (2011) Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1) 165-184
Welter, F., Gartner, W. B., & Wright, M. (2016) The Context of Contextualizing Contexts. In: Welter, Gartner & Wright (Eds), A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context, pp. 1-15, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007) Gender, Entrepreneurial Self‐efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3) 387-406

Information provenant de la page : http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/authors/writing/calls.htm?id=7399

Call For Paper: A special issue on entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning

ISBE 2017 in association with Industry and Higher Education

A special issue on entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning Guest Editors: Laura Galloway, David Higgins and Pauric McGowan

The international journal Industry and Higher Education, in association with the ISBE, will be publishing a special issue in 2018. Submissions are invited. The invitation is open to all ISBE 2017 participants, but other submissions will also be welcome.

Reflecting both the journal’s position at the interface between scholarship and practice and the conference’s concern with effective entrepreneurship education and development, the special issue will be concerned with the application and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. The ISBE Conference Tracks ‘Enterprise education’ and ‘Entrepreneurial practitioner learning’ will therefore be especially relevant.

Papers should focus on the relationship between business/industry and universities (as, for example, in the evaluation of entrepreneurship education programmes, the practical application of entrepreneurship theory, or enterprise development through education). They should be between 4,000 and 8,000 words long and based on original research. An abstract of 150-200 words and 3 to 6 keywords should be included.

For further information about Industry and Higher Education, please click here.

Submitting your paper: In the first instance, please submit your paper by email to lg1 @ ebs.hw.ac.uk (Laura Galloway); dhiggins @ liv.ac.uk (David Higgins); and p.mcgowan @ ulster.ac.uk (Pauric McGowan). In the subject box of your email, please state: ‘Submission to IHE special issue’.

Submission deadline: Please submit your paper no later than 8 December 2017

Entrepreneurship education and Entrepreneurial Learning