CfP SI – 01/31/2021- Technovation – Digitalization, Disruption, Technological Changes and the New Frontiers of Entrepreneurship


Call for Papers

Technovation Special Issue : Digitalization, Disruption, Technological Changes and the New Frontiers of Entrepreneurship

Guest Editors:

Wadid Lamine, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada
Alain Fayolle, EMLyon Business School, France
Sarah Jack, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden
David B. Audretsch, Institute for Development Strategies, Indiana University, USA


Entrepreneurship is a multidisciplinary research field whose primary object of study is the process of the creation, identification and exploitation of opportunities and how these opportunities are transformed into new products, services and businesses that create wealth and contribute to economic development (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). These entrepreneurial opportunities result from, among other things, the spatio-temporal contexts in which they emerge and develop (De Massis et al. 2018).

Today, far-reaching technological developments are making a deep impact on societies and economic environments worldwide. New digital platforms (Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018) infrastructure (fintech, data analytics, mobility, mobile business apps, nanotech, robotics, new space economy, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, cryptocurrencies, the internet of things, cloud computing, blockchain) are drawing us inexorably into a new globalized digital economy based on knowledge and mobility.

In this context of fast-paced change, new creative industries (Li, 2018), still in a state of flux, have arisen while others have disappeared, at least in their traditional form. Moreover, the intermixing of these new technologies has led to a redrawing of boundaries and an increase in their porosity (Nambisan, 2017) thanks to the links that have developed between the new and the traditional industries. This, it seems to us, extends the limits of entrepreneurship out towards new industries but also towards industries with high barriers to entry (De Massis et al. 2018) due to regulatory, technological or structural factors such as space, finance, aeronautics, IT hardware and health industries (Loderer, Stulz and Waelchi, 2016).

For a growing number of people, these new technologies, considered as “external enablers” (Davidsson, 2015), lead to a democratization of entrepreneurship (Aldrich, 2014) and a lowering of the barriers to starting up a company by reducing (or eliminating) the difficulties inherent in the entrepreneurial phenomenon in its “classical” configuration, difficulties such as high resource intensity, uncertainty, limited time or information asymmetry (Briel, Davidsson and Recker, 2018).

This new context, by offering new spaces for the creation, identification and exploitation of business opportunities, clearly extends the range of possibilities for a discipline such as entrepreneurship. Moreover, digitalization has helped to break down the boundaries between the different phases of the entrepreneurial process (Huang, Henfridsson, Liu & Newell, 2017).

Few studies in the discipline, however, have examined the impact of these technological disruptions not only the existing paradigms, but also our very conception of the entrepreneurial phenomenon in its nature and shifting contours (Nambisan, 2017).

This call for papers for the upcoming special issue invites entrepreneurship scholars to focus their efforts on the major changes that are likely to affect the entrepreneurial phenomenon in its capacity to transform itself within a digital, knowledge-based, mobility-centered economy. It aims to promote the emergence of new theories and conceptions (or the discussion of current theories and conceptions in light of the technological changes now underway) of the entrepreneurial opportunity and process that would more fully reflect the realities of the new environment we are living in.

We encourage authors, then, to submit theoretical and empirical work that offers original perspectives and draws on a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches.

Examples of relevant topics include, but are not limited to:

  • The impact of different new technology trends on entrepreneurial process dynamics associated with the creation, discovery and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities
  • How do new technology trends push entrepreneurship towards new frontiers and industries hitherto assumed to be inaccessible, such as health care, finance, space, etc.?
  • How do interactions between new emerging technologies provide new windows of opportunity and enable new transfer mechanisms within and between industries?
  • How does the emergence of new industries shape entrepreneurship as a socio-economic phenomenon?
  • New technology, new economy and new challenges for entrepreneurship research
  • The role of new technologies in enabling interconnections between existing and new industries
  • How do new technology options and alternatives contribute to reducing the entrepreneurship entry threshold?
  • New frontiers of entrepreneurship and their impact on society and public policy, with a view to improving human welfare.
  • How do new technologies create boundaries and spaces between industries for the creation and identification of new entrepreneurial opportunities?
  • Technological changes, digitalization and emerging entrepreneurship support mechanisms

Submissions should be prepared in accordance with Technovation’s guidelines and submitted via Manuscript Central ( The deadline of the submission is 31th, January 2021. When submitting, be sure to specify that the submission is for the special issue on ‘Technological Changes and the New Frontiers of Entrepreneurship’ by ticking the appropriate box. The Special Issue is subject to the normal double-blind review process established by Technovation.

Questions regarding any aspect of this special issue may be addressed to any of the coeditors:

Wadid Lamine (; Alain Fayolle (; Sarah Jack (; David B. Audretsch (


Aldrich, H. (2014). The democratization of entrepreneurship? Hackers, makerspaces, and crowdfunding. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, August 2014.

Briel, V.F., Davidsson, P., and Recker, J.C., (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the IT hardware. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 42 (1), 47-69

Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 674–695.

De Massis, A. Kotlar, J. Wright, M., and Kellermanns, EW. (2018). Sector-Based Entrepreneurial Capabilities and the Promise of Sector Studies in Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 42 (1), 47-69

Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., & Newell, S. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 301–314.

Loderer, C., Stulz, R., & Waelchli, U. (2016). Firm rigidities and the decline in growth opportunities. Management Science. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2478

Li, F. (2018). The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: A holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation (In press).

Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Towards a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/etap.12254

Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.

Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

Srinivasan, S & Venkatraman, N. (2018) Entrepreneurship in digital platforms: A network‐centric view, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 54-71,


CfP SI – Marchés & Organisations – L’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation dans l’enseignement supérieur – défis et bonnes pratiques

 Appel à communications, numéro spécial

L’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation dans l’enseignement supérieur – défis et bonnes pratiques

Rédacteurs: Marcos Lima et Joëlle Forest

Appel à Communication – Marché et Organisations – Entrepreneuriat et Innovation dans l’Enseignement Supérieur

Si près d’un Français sur trois est au courant des opportunités entrepreneuriales, seulement 5% d’entre eux créent/se lancent dans un projet d’entrepreneuriat. (GEM, 2014). Ce rapport n’est pas beaucoup mieux ailleurs en Europe. Parmi les raisons invoquées pour expliquer cet écart figurent des menaces perçues telles que : les crises économiques, un environnement hostile, la peur de l’échec et le manque de vocation et de compétences entrepreneuriales (Fayolle, 2012). Plusieurs auteurs (Degeorge et Fayolle, 2011; Mueller, 2011) établissent une corrélation entre la qualité de la formation à l’entrepreneuriat et l’intention de créer une nouvelle entreprise parmi les jeunes adultes. La dynamique d’innovation et programmes de formation dédiés à l’innovation font face à des challenges similaires. .

Les questions relatives à l’efficience et à l’efficacité de ces programmes restent nombreuses (Rideout et Gray, 2013). Quel est le rôle de l’apprentissage par projet par rapport à l’enseignement purement théorique dans les programmes d’entrepreneuriat et d’innovation (Mojab et al., 2011) ? Quelles sont les limites de la conception statique des business plans dans un environnement entrepreneurial de plus en plus dynamique (Tounés, Lassas-Clerc et Fayolle, 2014) ? Quel est l’impact réel des programmes d’enseignement existants sur l’esprit d’entreprise et l’esprit d’innovation (Villette, 2011) ? L’entrepreneuriat et l’innovation peuvent-ils vraiment être enseignés ou s’agit-il en grande partie d’une capacité innée (Lautenschläger et Haase, 2011) ? Quelles méthodes pédagogiques peuvent aider à développer l’intention entrepreneuriale (Fayolle et Verzat, 2009) et d’innovation ?

Par ailleurs, il semble exister une confusion ambiante entre entrepreneuriat et innovation. Cette dernière est particulièrement perceptible dans la façon dont a été pensée la mise en place du suivi obligatoire d’un cours dédié à l’innovation et à l’entrepreneuriat dans toutes les formations de l’enseignement supérieur (MESR, 2012). Quelles sont donc les spécificités de ces deux domaines de l’enseignement supérieur?

Malgré ces controverses, il semble exister un consensus autour des trois objectifs de l’éducation à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation: a) sensibiliser les étudiants ; b) développer les compétences et c) soutenir les étudiants souhaitant développer un esprit d’entreprise innovant (Albertini et al., 2019; Fayolle, 2012).

Cependant, ces initiatives sont souvent confinées au sein de l’université, fragmentées et mal connectées à l’écosystème de l’innovation (Raucent et al., 2010). La résistance à l’innovation et au changement peut provenir à la fois des enseignants et des étudiants. Les vieilles habitudes, l’inertie, la peur de l’inconnu, les barrières financières et le manque de temps pour restructurer les programmes sont souvent cités comme des freins à l’innovation pédagogique par les parties prenantes (Fayolle, 2012).

Parmi les autres facteurs cités dans la littérature qui pourraient influer le développement de l’intention entrepreneuriale, citons : le moment choisi (les étudiants qui se rapprochent le plus de l’obtention du diplôme semblent être plus soucieux d’obtenir un emploi stable que de créer leur propre activité); le niveau initial d’intention entrepreneuriale avant de s’engager dans un programme d’enseignement supérieur et de se rendre dans un lieu (la proximité de clusters d’innovation peut favoriser les attitudes entrepreneuriales).

L’objectif de ce numéro est d’élargir le débat sur l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat dans l’enseignement supérieur, ses limites, ses opportunités, ses défis et ses meilleures pratiques. Les contributions peuvent inclure, sans toutefois s’y limiter, les sujets suivants :

  1. Sensibilisation aux opportunités entrepreneuriales : les programmes d’entrepreneuriat ont mis en place des compétitions et des défis pour favoriser l’esprit d’entreprise et pour « révéler » des vocations insoupçonnées. Divers programmes sont axés sur la validation des compétences, les associations de jeunes entreprises et l’invitation de conférenciers comme source d’inspiration (Chené et al., 2011). Quel est l’impact de ces initiatives sur la sensibilisation entrepreneuriale ?
  2. Enseignements à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation : s’il existe des recouvrements entre ces domaines, il n’y a pas d’inclusion. . Noailles-Simeon (2013) et Christensen et al. (2013) soulignent que l’innovateur doit être distingué de l’entrepreneur car la nature de l’innovation est intrinsèquement différente de l’ acte entrepreneurial. Cependant, de nombreux programmes d’éducation utilisent les deux termes simultanément. Quels sont les risques d’une telle confusion ? Quels sont les défis à relever pour redéfinir le périmètre d’une formation à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation ?
  3. Développer les aptitudes et les compétences : les programmes d’entrepreneuriat et d’innovation ont expérimenté une pédagogie basée sur l’action, des disciplines hybrides combinant approches à la fois théoriques et pratiques, conférant aux apprenants des expériences de première main, un apprentissage collaboratif et réflexif grâce à un enseignement actif à travers des scénarios réels basés sur des études de cas. Des programmes dédiés ont essayé d’adapter le contenu aux besoins des étudiants, en établissant des indicateurs de réussite fondés sur des objectifs d’apprentissage clairement définis. D’autres méthodes (Aouni, 2011) préconisent les approches d’effectuation (détermination des effets possibles en fonction des moyens disponibles) plutôt que des méthodes prédictives (business plans statiques et planification à long terme). Quelles sont les limites et les possibilités de ces différentes approches ?
  4. Soutenir les programmes d’entrepreunariat et d’innovation : les établissements d’enseignement supérieur créent de plus en plus des programmes dédiés au développement de jeunes entreprises, telles que des incubateurs, des accélérateurs, des fab-labs et des espaces de co-working. Les programmes à l’échelle nationale ou régionale sont encouragés par les gouvernements locaux ou supranationaux dans l’espoir de faciliter l’activité entrepreneuriale et d’innovation. Les programmes d’investissement en capital-risque, ainsi que les plateformes de financement participatif, facilitent plus que jamais l’obtention de ressources financières à un stade précoce (Loué et al., 2008). Quelle est l’efficacité de ces dispositifs dans la promotion de l’activité entrepreneuriale et d’innovation ?
  5. Éthique de l’entrepreunariat et responsabilité sociale : dans un monde où abondent les scandales liés à la collecte de données et à la vie privée, dans lequel inégalités et pauvreté subsistent, et dans lequel la corruption est parfois tolérée, comment sensibiliser à l’esprit éthique et le développement durable dans les programmes d’entrepreunariat et d’innovation ? (Fayolle et Toutain, 2013)
  6. Facilitateurs stratégiques de l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat : la littérature (Albertini et al., 2019) suggère des pratiques telles que la co-construction de programmes en impliquant la communauté des parties prenantes, en établissant des programmes de formation de formateurs, en identifiant les vocations des élèves pour gérer leurs attentes et leurs craintes concernant l’échec et les risques. Quel est l’état de développement de ces pratiques sur le continent européen et au-delà ?
  7. Interaction avec les écosystèmes d’innovation : les programmes d’entrepreneuriat devraient être étroitement liés aux centres de recherche, aux entreprises, aux investisseurs et aux laboratoires vivants. Quels sont les moyens disponibles pour créer ces réseaux et d’établir des flux de connaissances entre les parties prenantes de l’écosystème de l’innovation entourant les établissements d’enseignement supérieur (Laperche et al., 2019) ?


Cet appel à communications est ouvert à toute contribution (en anglais ou en français) sur (mais pas exclusivement sur) les sujets susmentionnés. Le nombre de mots doit être inférieur à 8 000. Les articles seront sélectionnés en fonction de leur qualité et de leur originalité, ainsi que leur pertinence pour les universitaires et les praticiens.

Références bibliographiques

Albertini, T., Fabiani, T., Lameta, N., & Lima, M. (2019). A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of entrepreneurial teaching in higher education. Marché et organisations, (1), 159-186.

Aouni, Z. (2011), “Démystification d’une pédagogie émergente : l’approche par les compétences“, Entreprendre & Innover, vol 3, n° 11-12, p. 120-126

Chené, E., Schieb-Bienfait, N., Lavergne, A., Tregret-Bouche, I. (2011), “Une démarche de conception d’un dispositif de sensibilisation à l’entrepreneuriat”, Annales des Mines – Gérer et comprendre, n° 103, p. 60-70.

Christensen, C., Dyer, J., Gregersen, H. (2013). Le gène de l’innovateur : Cinq compétences qui font la différence, Pearson France, Montreuil sous Bois.

Degeorge, J. M., Fayolle, A. (2011), “Les étudiants français ont-ils la fibre entrepreneuriale ?”, Entreprendre et Innover, vol. 1, n° 9-10, p. 21-28.

Fayolle, A. (2012), Entrepreneuriat, Apprendre à Entreprendre, 2ème Ed. Dunod, Paris.

Fayolle, A., Gailly B. (2009), “Évaluation d’une formation en entrepreneuriat : prédisposition et impact sur l’intention d’entreprendre”, M@n@gement, vol. 12, n° 3, p. 176-203.

Fayolle, A., Toutain, O. (2013), “Four Educational Principles to Rethink Ethically Entrepreneurship Education”, Revista de Economia Mundial, n°35, p. 21-45.

Fayolle, A., Verzat C. (2009), “Pédagogies actives et entrepreneuriat : Quelle place dans nos enseignements ?”, Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 1-16.

GEM (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey. Available at

Laperche, B., Lima, M., Seulliet, E., Trousse, B. (2019) Les Écosystèmes D’innovation : Regards croisés des acteurs clés. L’Harmattan.

Lautenschläger, A.., Haase H. (2011), “The myth of entrepreneurship education: seven arguments against teaching business creation at universities”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol.14, p.147-161.

Loué, C., Laviolette E.M., Bonnafous-Boucher M. (2008), “L’entrepreneur à l’épreuve de ses compétences : Eléments de construction d’un référentiel en situation d’incubation”, Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 7, p.63-83

MESR (2012). 15 mesures pour augmenter l’impact économique de la recherche, 2 novembre 2012.

Mojab, F. Zaefarian, R., Dazian Azizi, A.H. (2011), “Applying competency based approach for entrepreneurship education”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, n° 12, p. 436-447.

Mueller S. (2011), “Increasing entrepreneurial intention: effective entrepreneurship course characteristics”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol.13, No.1, p.55-74

Noailles-Siméon, P. (2013). “De l’entrepreneur à l’innovateur dans une économie dynamique”, in Boutiller S., Djellal F., Uzunidis D. (eds), L’innovation : Analyser, anticiper, agir, Peter Lang éditions, p. 85-110.

Raucent, B., Verzat, C., Villeneuve, L. (2010) Accompagner les étudiants, Bruxelles : De Boeck, Chapitre 19, L’accompagnement dans les institutions d’enseignement supérieur, p. 501-540.

Rideout, E. C., 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, n°3, p.329-351.

Tounés A., Lassas-Clerc N., Fayolle A. (2015), “Effets comparés de deux pédagogies de plans d’affaires sur l’apprentissage entrepreneurial des étudiants, Une approche par les compétences”, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, n° 275-276, p.13-21.

Villette, M., (2011), “Comment répondre à la demande institutionnelle d’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat ? Compte rendu ethnographique d’une expérience d’enseignement”, Revue Française de Socio-Économie, vol.1 n° 7, p. 83-101.


– 30/06/2020 – date limite de soumission des résumés

– 31/08/2020 – réactions des évaluateurs

– 30/11/2020 – date limite pour la soumission du projet final

– 31/12/2020 – acceptation finale

– printemps 2021 – publication

Les textes doivent être obligatoirement être soumis à

Marcos Lima ( ou Joëlle Forest (

Plus d’informations sur notre site:

1st Conference of Research in Entrepreneurship, Education and Technology (#CREET)- 28-29 May 2020 – Ottawa

Ottawa, Canada
May 28-29 2020

The Telfer School of Management (University of Ottawa) and emlyon business school are proud to announce the 1st Conference of Research in Entrepreneurship, Education and Technology (#CREET) that will take place on 28-29 May 2020 in Ottawa, the beautiful Canadian capital. This will be the first annual gathering of the conference which will rotate between Telfer School of Management – University of Ottawa (Canada), and emlyon business school (France). This global conference aims to promote worldwide scholarly collaborations across regions, continents and academic communities. The first keynote addresses will be made by Benson Honig, Professor and Endowed Chair Teresa Cascioli in Entrepreneurial Leadership, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Sarfraz Mian, Professor of Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship at State University of New York at Oswego and Associate Editor of Journal of Small Business Management, and Fred Phillips, Professor of Management of Technology at University of New Mexico, Editor-in-Chief of Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal.

1st CREET Conference-University of Ottawa (002)

Special Issue – Entreprendre & Innover – L’ENTREPRENEURIAT DURABLE ET RESPONSABLE : quels enjeux pour les formations à l’entrepreneuriat?

Éditeur·trice·s : Valérie Ballereau, Matthias Pepin, Olivier Toutain, Maripier Tremblay

Appel à contribution N°43

 Thématique du numéro spécial

Les enjeux du développement durable sont aujourd’hui une réalité dans le quotidien des enseignant·e·s-chercheur·e·s en entrepreneuriat. En dépit d’une volonté de plus en plus largement partagée de tendre vers un entrepreneuriat dit responsable[1], c’est-à-dire s’inscrivant dans la perspective du développement durable (DD), les formateur·trice·s en entrepreneuriat se retrouvent souvent à bricoler des animations, insérant par-ci par-là une réflexion ou un exercice touchant aux enjeux du DD ou aux pratiques permettant d’y contribuer, sans réelle intégration au sein d’un programme de formation cohérent et structuré autour du cadre de la responsabilité. En effet, l’entrepreneuriat responsable demeure un sujet essentiellement émergent. Les référents théoriques, tout comme les outils pratiques pouvant être utilisés concrètement dans le cadre de formations à l’entrepreneuriat, restent de ce fait relativement peu nombreux[2], tandis que les programmes en entrepreneuriat directement axés sur la responsabilité sont encore peu répandus[3].

C’est le caractère émergent du sujet de l’entrepreneuriat responsable, et à plus forte raison la question contemporaine de son intégration aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat, qui fondent la pertinence de proposer un numéro spécial sur le sujet. En effet, au-delà d’une conscientisation relative au DD, ce sujet demeure encore souvent un objet de réflexion périphérique dans le quotidien des enseignant·e·s-chercheur·e·s, dans le sens où plusieurs souhaiteraient tendre vers cette orientation responsable de l’entrepreneuriat, sans savoir concrètement comment s’y prendre ou avoir le temps de s’informer sérieusement sur le sujet[4]. De ce fait, peu de chercheur(e)s orientent encore leurs recherches en ce sens. Les formateurs et formatrices en entrepreneuriat n’ont par ailleurs eux elles-mêmes qu’une formation limitée, sinon aucune formation, relative au DD. Dans cet esprit, on peut penser que la question de l’intégration de la responsabilité aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat appelle des collaborations multidisciplinaires permettant d’aborder en profondeur les enjeux relatifs au DD, objet touchant par définition de multiples dimensions (environnementale bien sûr, mais également sociale, économique, culturelle, et autres).

Dans la continuité de nos propres réflexions et questionnements sur le sujet[5], ce numéro spécial se donne pour triple objectif : 1) de mettre en débat le concept d’entrepreneuriat responsable dans un contexte de formation ; 2) de montrer, de manière pragmatique, comment les formateurs entrepreneuriat peuvent mobiliser cette dimension et 3) d’esquisser les enjeux relatifs à l’intégration de la responsabilité aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat.

En toile de fond, les propositions articuleront leurs questionnements à la formation à l’entrepreneuriat :

  • Comment intégrer le cadre de la responsabilité aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat ? Est-il pertinent de le faire ? Quels sont alors les enjeux ? Existe-t-il des pratiques gagnantes en la matière ? Quelles compétences particulières l’entrepreneur·e· responsable doit-il/elle développer et comment s’y prendre ? [6]


Les propositions, sous la forme d’un résumé étendu, traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  1. Concernant l’organisation de la formation :
    • La formation dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat responsable nécessite-elle :
      1. Une/des approche(s) pédagogique(s) particulière(s) ?
      2. La prise en compte d’un écosystème éducatif élargi, impliquant une communauté d’acteur·trice·s dans et en dehors de la faculté ?
      3. Des interactions d’un nouvel ordre entre acteur·trice·s de la formation et les professionnel·le·s (dirigeant·e·s d’entreprise, financeurs, accompagnateur·trice·s, institutions, etc.) investi·e·s dans le champ de l’entrepreneuriat responsable ?
      4. Des profils d’enseignant·e·s particuliers ?
      5. Des modes d’évaluation d’un nouveau genre ?
  1. Concernant le contenu de la formation :
  • Comment définir l’entrepreneuriat responsable ? Les référents (théoriques, épistémologiques, axiologiques, etc.) de la durabilité et de la responsabilité convergent-ils ? En d’autres termes, « durable » et « responsable » sont-ils des synonymes ? [7]
  • Comment lier les réflexions et questionnements relatifs aux travaux conduits sur le développement durable, la RSE en PME et l’entrepreneuriat responsable ? En quoi le mouvement des Principles of Responsible Management Education (PMRE), de même que les Objectifs du développement durable (ODD) des Nations Unies peuvent-ils nourrir l’entrepreneuriat durable/responsable ? [8]
  • Quels sont les modèles d’affaires qui intègrent le cadre de la responsabilité ? En quoi ces modèles d’affaires responsables ont-ils un impact sur la vision stratégique et les décisions prises par les créateurs ·trice·s et dirigeant·e·s de PME en lien avec le DD ? [9]
  • L’entrepreneuriat responsable appelle-t-il une organisation différente des entreprises ? Quel(s) mode(s) de gouvernance devraient-ils être privilégié(s) ? [10]

 Deux types de contributions sont attendues :

  • Des contributions issues de travaux de recherche visant à discuter de la notion d’entrepreneuriat responsable et de son intégration aux formations à l’entrepreneuriat. Selon les orientations de la revue Entreprendre et Innover, il est alors attendu que ces contributions soient apporteuses de contributions utiles, pragmatiques et privilégient le dialogue entre chercheurs et praticiens ;
  • Des contributions de nature pratique liées à une formation en entrepreneuriat qui intègre les questions de responsabilité. Dans ce dernier cas, il est attendu que ces contributions soient accompagnées d’une réflexion critique permettant de tirer leçon des expériences rapportées.


Echéances :

–          Soumission des résumés étendus (2 à 3 pages, références incluses) : au plus tard le 30 juin 2019

–          Retour aux auteurs : 15 juillet 2019

–          Soumission des textes complets : 1er novembre 2019

–          Processus d’arbitrage et d’édition : décembre 2019 à mai 2020

–          Parution : Juin 2020


Ligne éditoriale

La revue Entreprendre et Innover est une revue de vulgarisation de haut niveau dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation éditée par de Boeck Université. Son ambition est de mettre à la portée d’un lectorat de cadres, entrepreneurs, professionnels des réseaux de création d’entreprises et dirigeants d’entreprises, des articles originaux, solides sur le plan scientifique ou innovants sur le plan des idées exprimées, dans un format plus accessible que celui des publications académiques classiques. La revue est ouverte à TOUTES les disciplines et à TOUS les points de vue qui s’intéressent à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation.

Dans la mesure où cette revue s’adresse en priorité à des praticiens, nous restons attentifs à ce que les contributions aient une préoccupation d’applications pratiques, d’implications entrepreneuriales et/ou de recommandations en matière politique. Dans cet esprit, les contributions devront :

  • avoir une section faisant explicitement référence à ces préoccupations : le lecteur doit toujours pouvoir se dire en fin de lecture : et alors ? en quoi cet article m’aide à agir ou à mieux réfléchir pour mon action future ?
  • adopter un langage plus concret et opérationnel qu’il n’est d’usage dans les revues académiques : la théorie ne doit pas être absente mais vulgarisée, c’est-à-dire traduite en termes simples. Les concepts abstraits doivent être explicités et/ou illustrés par des exemples pratiques.
  • ne pas accumuler les références scientifiques: le but est de choisir quelques auteurs de référence utiles pour comprendre le propos, non de montrer l’exhaustivité de la littérature académique sur le sujet. Les références scientifiques doivent être exclusivement citées grâce aux notes de bas de page.

Le détail des consignes aux auteurs est disponible sur le site de la revue : Consignes aux auteurs E&I . Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission. Dans le cas contraire, celle-ci ne sera pas intégrée dans le processus d’évaluation.

Toute soumission d’article doit être accompagnée des deux documents suivants :

Merci d’envoyer votre soumission ainsi que la fiche correspondante à : Elisabeth GELAS (EMLYON)


[1]  Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Kailer, N., & Baldwin, B. (2018). Responsible entrepreneurship: outlining the contingencies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. Early Cite.

[2]  Lourenço, F., Jones, O., & Jayawarna, D. (2012). Promoting sustainable development: The role of entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal, 31(8), 841-865.

Obrecht, J.-J. (2016). Sustainable entrepreneurship education: A new field for research in step with the ‘effectual entrepreneur’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 29(1), 83-102.

[3] Marzi, G., & Caputo, A. (2019). Responsible Entrepreneurship Education. Emerging Research and Opportunities. Hershey : IGI Global.

[4] Thomas, M. T. (2018). Developing a capstone course on ecological and social sustainability in business education. Business Horizons, 61(6), 949-958.

[5] Ballereau, V., & Reboud, S. (2016). Entrepreneuriat durable : qu’apprend-t-on du modèle d’affaire des PME de tourisme durable ? 13e CIFEPME, 26-28 octobre 2016, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.

Pepin, M., Tremblay, M., & Audebrand, L.K. (2017). L’entrepreneuriat responsable : proposition d’un cadre conceptuel et implications pour la formation. Document de travail 2017-008. Université Laval, Québec : Faculté des sciences de l’administration.

[6] Biberhofer, P., Lintner, C., Bernhardt, J., & Rieckmann, M. (2018). Facilitating work performance of sustainability-driven entrepreneurs through higher education: The relevance of competencies, values, worldviews and opportunities. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Online First, February, 8, 2018.

Van Der Yeught, C. (2017). Les compétences de l’entrepreneur responsable : proposition d’un cadre conceptuel. Revue de l’organisation responsable, 12(1), 5-16.

[7] Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448.

Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631-652.

[8] Haertle, J., Parkes, C., Murray, A., & Hayes, R. (2017). PRME: Building a global movement on responsible management education. International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 66-72.

Storey, M., Killian, S., & O’Regan, P. (2017). Responsible management education: Mapping the field in the context of the SDGs. International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 93-103.

Tiba, S., van Rijnsoever, F.J., & Hekkert, M.P. (2018). Firms with benefits: A systematic review of responsible entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. Early View.

[9] Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56.

Hoveskog, M., Halila, F., Mattsson, M., Upward, A., & Karlsson, N. (2018). Education for sustainable development: Business modelling for flourishing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4383-4396.

Upward, A., & Jones, P. (2016). An ontology for strongly sustainable business models: Defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 97-123.

[10] Lupova-Henry, E., & Dotti, N. F. (2019). Governance of sustainable innovation: Moving beyond the hierarchy-market-network trichotomy? A systematic literature review using the ‘who-how-what’ framework. Journal of Cleaner Production210, 738-748.

 Creativity and Innovation Management – Call for Papers SI – Digital Two-Sided Platforms – Unveiling Research and Business Opportunities

Call for Papers – Digital Two-Sided Platforms

Unveiling Research and Business Opportunities

Special Issue Guest Editors

Politecnico di Milano

School of Management

Milan, Italy

Trinity College Dublin

Trinity Business School

Dublin, Ireland

Audencia Business School

Nantes, France

Politecnico di Milano

School of Management

Milan, Italy



This special issue calls for the submission of conceptual and empirical studies that tackle the specificities presented by digital platforms. We seek contributions that offer insights into process, organizational, individual, network or technological level on how platform-based digital businesses transform the theories, models and managerial practices.


“How can a major business segment be invaded and conquered in a matter of months by an upstart with none of the resources traditionally deemed essential for survival, let alone market dominance? And why is this happening today in one industry after another? The answer is the power of the platform—a new business model that uses technology to connect people, organizations, and resources in an interactive ecosystem in which amazing amounts of value can be created and exchanged.”

(Parker, Van Alstyne and Choudary, Platform Revolution, 2016)

This quote refers to companies such as Uber, AirBnb, BlaBlaCar that over the last years had a significant impact on the market. Those digital platforms are challenging established companies and approach a market with different business models, marketing philosophy, and supply chain configuration, all of which challenges decades of management research.

Yet, the business configuration behind these companies has a long history in the economic literature known as two-sided platforms. A two-sided platform (or formerly a two-sided market) is a business “in which one or several platforms enable interactions between end-users, and try to get the two (or multiple) sides ‘on board’ by appropriately charging each side” (Rochet and Tirole, 2006, p. 645). In other words, these businesses act as match-makers between two (or more) different but interconnected groups of customers: travelers and hosts for Airbnb or riders and drivers for Uber, creating indirect network effects (Katz and Shapiro, 1985).

The peculiarities of this market structure have been investigated over the last two decades in the economic literature. In particular, specific attention has been devoted to the pricing mechanisms and the role of the network externalities (Rochet and Tirole, 2006; Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005). The more recent literature highlights how the resource configuration behind these businesses is significantly different from the companies based on linear value chains (Amit and Zott, 2015) or how the development process can be particularly challenging (Perks et al., 2017). Furthermore, these companies need to design and manage complex business models based on a double value proposition (Muzellec et al., 2015), requiring to bring on board different kinds of customers at the same time to avoid the chicken-and-egg paradox (Strummer et al., 2018).

Two-sided platforms have also been used to describe a wide array of situations, being flexible to numerous configurations (Tauscher and Laudien, 2018) – for example having end users on both sides, or having consumers on one side and businesses on the other. The same structure has also been used to unveil the opportunities of digital services, opening new avenues to foster business model innovation (Trabucchi et al., 2017, 2018).

Innovation scholars leveraged this concept mainly to deal with users’ community and open innovation projects (e.g., Parmentier and Gandia, 2013; Wang et al., 2018) or dealing with the sharing economy phenomenon (Richter et al., 2017).

In particular, this call for papers aims to explore and exploit the opportunities related to multi-sided platforms, which are being boosted by digital technologies (such as mobile apps or the blockchain) and cultural trends (such as sharing or gig economy). Indeed, there is the need for rigorous and theoretically relevant research, being also practice based, in order to enhance the knowledge for all the players (scholars, practitioners, policy makers) involved in this innovative business models. Therefore, this call for papers aims to enlarge the discussion on the topic from a managerial perspective, embracing mainly an innovation perspective, to dig into the distinctiveness of multi-sided digital platforms.


In this special issue, we welcome both conceptual and empirical studies, using a wide variety of methods. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

Process level

  • How to design and implement a platform-based digital business model?
  • How does the development of a platform-based digital business differ from a traditional product-based one?
  • What is the life-cycle perspective of two-sided digital businesses?
  • What are the key peculiarities of the different lifecycle phases (design, start-up, scale-up, mature stage etc.)?
  • How to manage ambidexterity and tensions between the multiple sides?


Organizational level

  • What are the challenges and opportunities of creating a multi-sided digital platform?
  • What are the challenges and opportunities of managing a multi-sided digital platform?
  • How to transform traditional business models in a digital ecosystem and platform-based perspective?
  • Which forms of leadership are needed to manage these complex ecosystems of relationships?
  • Which organizational forms are suitable to manage such businesses?


Individual level

  • What are the motivational drivers of either side for joining the platform?
  • How those motivational drivers differ between the two sides?
  • How do customers perceive the complementary (or contradictory?) value propositions proposed by the platform for each side?
  • How can we assess the value appropriation by users and customers, with regards to the value proposition?


Network level

  • How to collaborate across organizations with similar or different business models?
  • How those multi-sided digital platforms enhance the foundations of business ecosystems literature?
  • What is the role of coopetition dynamics in such digital environments?
  • What is the role of multi-sided platforms in the emergence of business ecosystems?


Technological level

  • What is the role of User Generated Big Data in such an environment?
  • How the mobile and App economy revise our understanding of multi-sided business models?
  • What may be the impact of emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, deep-learning and IA) on these digital business configurations?


Submission Deadline and Review Process

The deadline for the submission of full papers is 31st August 2019.

All submissions should follow the author guidelines for CIM as published on the Journal website, see For any further information, please visit the Journal website or contact the special issue guest editors.


Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350.

Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.

Muzellec, L., Ronteau, S., & Lambkin, M. (2015). Two-sided internet platforms: A business model lifecycle perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 139-150.

Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494-1504.

Parker, G. G., Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton.

Parmentier, G., & Gandia, R. (2013). Managing sustainable innovation with a user community toolkit: The case of the video game Trackmania. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 195-208.

Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2017). Network orchestration for value platform development. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 106-121.

Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S., & Giselbrecht, C. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Innovative business models for the sharing economy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(3), 300-310.

Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two‐sided markets: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667.

Rysman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125-43.

Stummer, C., Kundisch, D., & Decker, R. (2018). Platform launch strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(2), 167-173.

Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2018). Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36(3), 319-329.

Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., & Pellizzoni, E. (2017). Give away your digital services: Leveraging big data to capture value. Research-Technology Management, 60(2), 43-52.

Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., Dell’Era, C., & Pellizzoni, E. (2018). Exploring the inbound and outbound strategies enabled by user generated big data: Evidence from leading smartphone applications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(1), 42-55.

Wang, K., Nickerson, J., & Sakamoto, Y. (2018). Crowdsourced idea generation: The effect of exposure to an original idea. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 196-208.

Appel à Contributions – Entreprendre et Innover n° 42 “Entreprises familiales et familles en affaires: L’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ?”

appel à com E&I n° 42 Entrepreneuriat Familial FINAL

Éditeurs : Miruna Radu-Lefebvre, Céline Barrédy, Alain Fayolle

Thématique du numéro spécial
Les entreprises familiales représentent la grande majorité des entreprises au niveau mondial que ce soit dans les pays développés ou émergents1. Selon Fanny Letier, directrice de l’activité PME à la banque publique Bpifrance2, 83% des entreprises françaises en font partie, toute taille et secteur confondus. Pourtant, ce n’est que depuis quelques décennies que le champ disciplinaire du « family business » a vu le jour et démarré son développement, en parallèle et souvent de manière étanche par rapport au champ disciplinaire connexe, celui de l’entrepreneuriat. Ces deux champs se sont structurés et développés séparément, avec leurs propres spécialistes et leurs propres terrains, leurs modèles théoriques, leurs journaux et leurs conférences dédiées. Pourtant, leur proximité est réelle3 et leur dialogue nécessaire en raison du rôle reconnu joué par la famille dans la genèse et la transmission de l’esprit entrepreneurial et des compétences entrepreneuriales, également de l’intention entrepreneuriale ou encore des comportements entrepreneuriaux4. C’est ce qui explique l’émergence, lors des dernières années, d’un nouveau champ de recherche, « l’entrepreneuriat familial », situé à l’intersection de l’entrepreneuriat, du family business, de la sociologie et de la psychologie de la famille.
Si le champ du family business s’intéresse aux entreprises familiales caractérisées comme des entreprises dont la propriété et/ou le contrôle reviennent majoritairement à une ou des famille(s) dont l’intention est de transmettre l’entreprise de génération en génération5, l’entrepreneuriat familial englobe ce champ tout en le dépassant. Il pose comme objet d’étude central le phénomène entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires et des entreprises familiales. Le focus de l’entrepreneuriat familial relève ainsi de l’étude des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux des individus, des familles, et des entreprises6. Pourquoi s’intéresser au phénomène entrepreneurial dans ce cadre précis de la famille et des entreprises familiales ? En effet, il a été montré que la pérennité et la croissance des entreprises familiales multigénérationnelles dépendent étroitement de la présence et de l’importance des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux chez les membres de la famille, comme chez les employés et les managers externes7.
L’environnement sociodémographique, légal, économique et culturel des familles en affaires évolue rapidement au travers du monde. Ces évolutions influencent à la fois le comportement des membres des familles en affaires mais également celui des entreprises familiales elles-mêmes. Des enjeux de définition de la famille, des questions liées au genre et aux nouvelles ambitions et revendications des femmes, l’intérêt croissant à la fois de la sphère économique et de la sphère politique pour les impacts sociaux et environnementaux des entreprises transforment en profondeur le paysage dans lequel les entreprises familiales opèrent aujourd’hui. Les contours légaux de la famille au premier rang desquels les familles recomposées, l’adoption ainsi que leurs évolutions récentes comme le mariage homosexuel ou encore la procréation médicalement assistée pour toutes les femmes, interrogent les dynamiques entrepreneuriales et leur évolutions consécutives dans le cadre de l’entreprise familiale. Pour bien comprendre les dynasties familiales, il faut prendre en compte le droit de la famille88. Les dispositifs institutionnels de soutien de l’entrepreneuriat et du repreneuriat, ainsi que le cadre institutionnel relatif à la transmission intergénérationnelle de la propriété de l’entreprise familiale affectent les choix relatifs à la création et à la transmission de ces entreprises dans le cadre de la famille ou à un tiers9.
Les propositions traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  • Comment se transmet l’esprit entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires ? Quels rôles jouent l’histoire familiale, les interactions avec le dirigeant, les apprentissages formels et informels dans cette transmission ?
  • Quelles pratiques entrepreneuriales peut-on observer au sein des familles en affaires et comment peut-on les étudier et les appréhender, à travers quels choix méthodologiques et quelles approches théoriques ?
  • Quel est l’impact des comportements entrepreneuriaux (ou intrapreneuriaux) du dirigeant, du successeur, ou des managers externes sur la performance des entreprises familiales ?
  • Comment les membres des familles en affaires gèrent-ils la superposition de rôles sociaux appartenant à des univers distincts (famille, entreprise, actionnariat) lorsqu’ils lancent de nouvelles activités au sein de l’entreprise ou souhaitent introduire des innovations, changer d’orientation stratégique ou revisiter l’identité organisationnelle ?
  • Quels outils formels et informels la famille mobilise-t-elle pour transmettre et / ou générer l’esprit d’entreprendre au sein des nouvelles générations ?
  • Les doctrines institutionnelles conduisent-elles à des comportements entrepreneuriaux distincts au sein des familles ?

Échéancier :

  • Soumission des textes : Au plus tard le 30 avril 2019
  • Parution : Mars 2020

Ligne éditoriale
La revue Entreprendre et Innover est une revue de vulgarisation de haut niveau dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation édité par DeBoeck Université. Son ambition est de mettre à la portée d’un lectorat de cadres, entrepreneurs, professionnels des réseaux de création d’entreprises et dirigeants d’entreprises, des articles originaux, solides sur le plan scientifique ou innovants sur le plan des idées exprimées, sans s’accaparer des oripeaux des publications académiques. La revue est ouverte à TOUTES les disciplines et à TOUS les points de vue qui s’intéressent à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation.
Dans la mesure où cette revue s’adresse en priorité à des praticiens, nous restons attentifs à ce que les contributions aient une préoccupation d’applications pratiques, d’implications entrepreneuriales et/ou de recommandations en matière politique. Dans cet esprit, les contributions devront :

  • avoir une section faisant explicitement référence à ces préoccupations : le lecteur doit toujours pouvoir se dire en fin de lecture : et alors ? en quoi cet article m’aide à agir ou à mieux réfléchir pour mon action future ?
  • adopter un langage plus concret et opérationnel qu’il n’est d’usage dans les revues académiques : la théorie ne doit pas être absente mais vulgarisée, c’est-à-dire traduite en termes simples. Les concepts abstraits doivent être explicités et/ou illustrés par des exemples pratiques.
  • ne pas accumuler les références scientifiques : le but est de choisir quelques auteurs de référence utiles pour comprendre le propos, non de montrer l’exhaustivité de la littérature académique sur le sujet. Les références scientifiques doivent être exclusivement citées grâce aux notes de bas de page.

Le détail des consignes aux auteurs est disponible sur le site de la revue : Consignes aux auteurs E&I – janvier 2014. Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission.

Toute soumission d’article doit être accompagnée des deux documents suivants:

  • La fiche descriptive disponible ici: Fiche soumission d’article E&I – janvier 2014.
  • La déclaration d’honneur anti-plagiat disponible ici: Déclaration anti-plagiat 2014-0824

Merci d’envoyer votre soumission ainsi que la fiche correspondante à : Elisabeth GELAS (EMLYON)


1 Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 1010–1037.
2 Arriver, D., & Jacquot, B. (2016). Les entreprises familiales toujours au coeur de l’économie, Le Figaro, 14 décembre.
3 Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1012-1021
4 Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.
Fayolle, A., & Bégin, L. (2009). Entrepreneuriat familial: croisement de deux champs ou nouveau champ issu d’un double croisement?. Management international, 14(1), 11-23
5 Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(4), 19-39.
6 Bégin, L., Chabaud, D., & Richomme-Huet, K. (2010). Vers une approche contingente des entreprises familiales. Revue française de gestion, (1), 79-86.
Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching Entrepreneurship in Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4), 506-529.
Chabaud, D. (2013). Les entreprises familiales au coeur de l’entrepreneuriat?. Le grand livre de l’entrepreneuriat. Paris, Dunod,157-172.
Chabaud, D., & Sammut, S. (2014). Entrepreneuriat et entreprises familiales, de la proximité à un champ de recherche spécifique. Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, 13(3), 7-10.
Radu-Lefebvre, M.., & Lefebvre, V. (2016). Anticipating intergenerational management transfer of family firms: A typology of next generation’s future leadership projections. Futures, 75, 66-82.
7 Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143-154.
Randerson, K., Dossena, G., & Fayolle, A. (2016). The futures of family business: family entrepreneurship. Futures, (75), 36-43.
8 Marcus, G. E. (1991). Law in the development of dynastic families among American business elites: The domestication of capital and the capitalization of family. Family Business Review, 4(1), 75-111.
9 Barrédy, C. (2016). In search of future alternatives for family business: Family law contributions through Civil and Common Law comparison. Futures, 75, 44-53.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 29-49.

Call for papers – Special Issue of the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing – “Concepts and Facets of Entrepreneurial Diversity”


Guest Editors: Kerstin Ettl, University of Siegen, Germany Siegrun Brink, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn, Germany Silke Tegtmeier, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Monder Ram, Aston University, UK

If you think about entrepreneurship, which picture comes to your mind? Whom would you call an entrepreneur? What characterizes that person? What characterizes the company? The variety of answers on that might be as multifaceted as the number of people wondering about it. Why? More than 30 years ago, Gartner (1985: 696) spotted that “differences among entrepreneurs and among their ventures are as great as the variation between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs and between new firms and established firms.” This statement is still true: It is impossible to universalize entrepreneurship – entrepreneurship is about variation and it varies in different dimensions (Welter et al., 2016).

Not only in relation to entrepreneurship, but also in relation to various other societal and political contexts, the buzzword ‘diversity’ is in the spotlight. Interestingly, in scholarly as well as political discussion, one question often remains unanswered: what exactly is meant when we talk about ‘diversity’? The roots of the term ‘diversity’, as it is used in current political and societal discussions, are in sociological research. Here the term diversity is not just a synonym for heterogeneity, variety or multiplicity. Within the framing of ‘diversity’, sociological researchers analyse and value the heterogeneity of individuals in relation to specific characteristics – so-called diversity categories or diversity dimensions. They address largely stable demographic dimensions such as gender, age, migration and physical ability; external, changeable dimensions such as income, work experience and personal habits; and organisational dimensions such as work location, management status and seniority (Gardenswartz and Rowe 2002). Based on these and other diversity categories, researchers investigate teams, companies, institutions and all kinds of other groups.

Following Bögenhold and Fachinger (2011), entrepreneurial diversity addresses different facets of the social and occupational variety. Many of these facets, especially demographic dimensions, have been investigated in recent research, for instance gender (Frigotto and Della Nives, 2018; Kanze et al., 2018; Marlow and Martinez Dy, 2018; Spiegler and Halberstadt, 2018; Tegtmeier and Kurczewska, 2017) and migration (Etemad, 2018; Ram et al., 2017) and disability (Antshel, 2018; Wiklund et al., 2018). Surprisingly, entrepreneurship research has not yet tried to explore facets of entrepreneurial diversity in a holistic conceptual way. Existing sociological diversity concepts have not (yet) been adapted to the entrepreneurship research context, and diversity-related levels of analysis are not (yet) defined clearly in this regard. In order to capture the uniqueness of each entrepreneurial situation, we agree with Welter et al. (2017), who emphasised entrepreneurial diversity and claimed that future research must try to indicate the variety in the phenomenon of entrepreneurship more adequately.

Against this background, this special issue will address the aforementioned research gap, and aims to look at conceptual framings as well as different facets of entrepreneurial diversity. In doing so, it aims to serve as a basis of discussion for future research into entrepreneurial diversity. Furthermore, it will help in making research concerning entrepreneurial diversity relevant to other scientific, political and societal diversity discussions.

We welcome high-quality manuscripts looking at entrepreneurial diversity from different perspectives – either globally or in different facets of diversity. Manuscripts can be international in scope or can look at domestic issues with global relevance. Conceptual and empirical papers, from different analytical and methodological perspectives can be submitted. We welcome theoretical, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method papers. Together, the papers should build a body of high-quality, cumulative research that recapitulates and extends our current knowledge concerning entrepreneurial diversity.

Suitable topics include, but are not limited, to the following:

Conceptual framings of entrepreneurial diversity: What is meant when we talk about entrepreneurial diversity? What aspects do we need to consider when we talk about entrepreneurial diversity? How does conceptualising entrepreneurial diversity bring our research field forward? How can we better connect entrepreneurship research to current societal and political debates about diversity? Are there frameworks within other disciplines (for example human resource management) we can build on? Does, and if so how, does taking sociological diversity concepts into account help to understand and explain entrepreneurial diversity? How can we adequately investigate and measure entrepreneurial diversity?

Facets of entrepreneurial diversity: What do we know about single diversity categories such as (but not limited to) age, race, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, income, work experiences, personal habits, work location, management status and seniority? How are single categories positioned within the framing of diversity? How is research about entrepreneurial diversity influenced through the internationality of our research community? How does the relevance of different diversity categories differ between contexts?

Intersectionality of diversity dimensions: How do different dimensions relevant to drawing a picture of entrepreneurial diversity intersect? How does research about intersectionality feed into entrepreneurship research?

Tensions related to entrepreneurial diversity in different contexts: Which tensions does diversity create in different contexts? How can an acceptance of difference be reached in different diversity categories? Which role does the specific context play?


Notes for Prospective Authors

 Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. (N.B. Conference papers may only be submitted if the paper has been completely re-written and if appropriate written permissions have been obtained from any copyright holders of the original paper).

  • All papers are refereed through a peer review process.
  • All papers must be submitted online. To submit a paper, please read our Submitting articles page.
  • If you have any queries concerning this special issue, please email Kerstin Ettl at Siegrun Brink at Silke Tegtmeier at Monder Ram at


Voluntary submission to the RENT Conference 2019

  • There will be a special track on “Concepts and Facets of Entrepreneurial Diversity” at the RENT Conference 2019 with the chance to meet the editors of this special issue. There will be the option to choose this track when submitting a RENT abstract and paper.
  • Papers submitted and accepted for this special track will be given developmental feedback for finalising the papers for submission to the special issue. Nevertheless, submission and acceptance for the RENT Conference is not necessary for submission to the special issue, and every paper submitted to the conference has to undergo the regular double-blind review process for the journal after the conference.
  • The deadline for submission of abstracts for the special track via the conference’s submission system is 15 May, 2019.
  • The deadline for submission of full papers to the conference after notification of acceptance is 1 October, 2019.


Important Dates

  • Manuscripts due by: 1 November – 31 December, 2019
  • Notification to authors (1st round): 28 February, 2020
  • First revised manuscript due by: 30 April, 2019
  • Notification to authors (2nd round): 28 February, 2020
  • Final versions due by: 31 August, 2020


Antshel KM (2018) Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(2): 243–265.

Bögenhold D and Fachinger U (2011) Entrepreneurial Diversity: Theoretische und empirische Beleuchtungen der Heterogenität beruflicher Selbständigkeit in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 59(4): 251–272.

Etemad H (2018) Advances and challenges in the evolving field of international entrepreneurship: The case of migrant and diaspora entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 16(2): 109–118.

Frigotto ML and Della Nives V (2018) Gender and the structuring of the entrepreneurial venture: an effectuation approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10(4): 412–434.

Gartner WB (1985) A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation. Academy of Management Review 10(4): 696–706.

Kanze D, Huang L, Conley MA, et al. (2018) We Ask Men to Win and Women Not to Lose: Closing the Gender Gap in Startup Funding. Academy of Management Journal 61(2): 586–614.

Marlow S and Martinez Dy A (2018) Annual review article: Is it time to rethink the gender agenda in entrepreneurship research? International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 36(1): 3–22.

Ram M, Jones T and Villares-Varela M (2017) Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice. International Small Business Journal 35(1): 3–18.

Spiegler AB and Halberstadt J (2018) SHEstainability: how relationship networks influence the idea generation in opportunity recognition process by female social entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10(2): 202–235.

Tegtmeier S and Kurczewska A (2017) Business entry and window of opportunity – empirical results for women entrepreneurs with graduate degree. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 9(1): 41–59.

Welter F, Baker T, Audretsch DB, et al. (2017) Everyday Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 41(3): 305–468.

Welter F, Gartner WB and Wright M (2016) The context of contextualising contexts. In: Welter F and Gartner WB (eds) A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context: Cheltenham, UK, Nothampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–15.

Wiklund J, Hatak I, Patzelt H, et al. (2018) Mental Disorders in the Entrepreneurship Context: When Being Different Can Be An Advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(2): 182–206.


Link to the Call on IJEV Webpage:

ISSN Print: 1742-5360

Indexed in Scopus and the Emerging Sources Citation Index

Listed in Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) Academic Journal Guide


Special Issue Journal of Organizational Change Management – Psycho-sociology, Gerontology and Aging: towards an economic and social revolution for society

Psycho-sociology, Gerontology and Aging: towards an economic and social revolution for society

Guest Editors:

Adnane Maalaoui (IPAG Business School, France)

Mustafa Ozbilgin (Brunel University, UK)

Tania Saba (University of Montreal, Canada)

Erhan Aydin (Usak University, Turkey)

This SI aims at better understand the elderly through the theory of aging and by considering different areas of research, such as gerontology, economic, entrepreneurship, HRM and psycho-sociology.
The aging process and how people experienced it, is one of the main topics of medical science, as it can have a direct effect on people’s life expectancy. The importance of aging process in maintaining life satisfaction and well-being during the lifespan made it a subject of interest for individuals and different actors such as companies and public services. According to Austad (1997), the aging process refers to “the different developments and changes in the body’s functions over time, the losses, the gains, and the perceptions resulting from these changes”. The mentioned process differs from one individual to another and is associated with both objective (physical degradation, the decline in perceptual and memory performance) and subjective (a person perception of his own aging) factors (Fontaine, 1999). Hence, in the senior segmentation, considering objective variables such as age or income is as important as considering subjective variables such as the perceived aging experience (Guiot, 2006).

Changes and their consequences on behaviors

As individuals become older, they face social, physical and cognitive difficulties that may affect their attitudes and behaviors (Greco, 1987, Schewe, 1989, Ostroff, 1989). Social changes in the elderly, like becoming grandparents, losing some social roles and trying to find the new ones, are particularly important as older individuals have to adapt them (Tamaro-Hans, 1999). Especially, retirement stands as one of the most significant events in one’s life and is mainly associated with the loss of social roles that individuals have to cope with.

Physical disorders which include the loss of sensorial abilities (Vanhamme, 2001) are also some other consequences of becoming old. Cognitive disorders cause decreasing intellectual capabilities (Mishara and Riedel, 1985; De Ladoucette, 1997), concentration or attention problems (Van der Linden, 1994; Boujon, 1995) as well as memorizing and retrieval information problems (Mishara and Riedel, 1985). These changes may have a great impact on information processing, such as the way the older individuals process any environmental stimulus (Moschis, 1994).
One of the major concerns caused by an aging population is the question of whether the working population will be productive enough to maintain economic growth as well as the serious impacts on workplaces. While striving to maintain a skilled and productive workforce, organizations and governments must face the challenges posed by an ageing generation, find diversified and innovative solutions (Wisse et al., 2015). Developing an active ageing strategy requires considering employers’ attitudes regarding older people, individuals’ perceptions of their end of career (Rabl & del Carmen Triana, 2014) and efforts made by governments in favour of active ageing (Saba, 2014).  The end-of-career trajectories of both men and women remain unpredictable, often uncertain and deserve attention.

Entrepreneurship literature suggests that the more aged people are, the less motivated they are in setting up a new business. Seniors have less appetite to engage in entrepreneurial activities (Curran and Blackburn, 2001; Hart et al., 2004; Levesque and Minniti, 2006) since the cost of the time factor increases with age and thus discourage seniors’ venture for entrepreneurship (Kautonen, Tornikoski and Kibler, 2011).
Moreover, whether consciously or unconsciously, aging is mainly associated with the perspective of death (Routledge and Arndt, 2005). As the people grow older, the time is shrinking for them and is perceived as being limited. This aspect of the aging experience may lead to different motivations and behaviors which the older individuals imply in the rest of their life.
Aging theories and topics of interest
Several theories have been developed by the psychology and gerontology to explain the motivations and behaviors of elderly. The “psychosocial development” theory suggests how death consciousness in the older individuals is associated with the acceptance of one’s destiny (Erikson, 1963). The “socio-emotional selectivity” (TSS) theory suggests time perception influences goals and motivations (Carstensen, Fung and Charles, 2003). The “Selection, optimization, compensation” (SOC) theory introduces three regulation strategies which contribute in successful aging (Baltes and Freund, 2003).
Some other discussed theories are the “theory of disengagement”, the “theory of activity”, the “theory of socialization” (Smith and Moschis, 1984) as well as “the theory of continuity” (Atchley, 1989). As it is suggested by these theories, the older individuals stand as an interesting target for the researcher as they use specific resources and strategies that enable them to maintain well-being and meaning in one’s life. In this perspective, entrepreneurship can be seen as a means to overcome social, cognitive and physical changes.
This SI aims at better understand the elderly through the theory of aging by considering different areas of research, such as entrepreneurship, gerontology and psycho-sociology…etc.
The topics of interests for this special issue include, but are not limited to:
•    Cognitive aging and decision making
•    Aging and resistance to change
•    Successful aging
•    Aging and employment
•    Aging and health
•    Aging and its effect on consumption behavior
•    The intergenerational relationships and their role in successful aging
•    The role of innovations and new technologies in subjective aging
•    The perspective of death and its effect on the elderly motivations
•    Creating or maintaining social acceptance for the eldery
•    Entrepreneurship as an opportunity for successful aging
We aim to propose with this SI a meaningful value to researchers on aging, practitioners and policy-makers.


Atchley, R. C. (1989). A Continuity Theory of Normal Aging, Gerontologist,  29 (2), 183-190.
Atchley R.C. (1996), Continuity Theory and the Evolution of Activity in Later Adulthood, Activity and Aging, ed. J.R. Kelly, Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1-16.
Austad S.N. (1997) Wye We Age: What Science is Discovering About the Body’s Jourrney Through Life, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Baltes P. B, & Freund, A. M. (2003). Human strengths as the orchestration of wisdom and selective optimization with compensation. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Perspectives on an emerging field (pp. 23–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., & Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and emotion, 27(2), 103-123.
Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. A. (2001). Older people and the enterprise society: Age and self-employment propensities. Work, Employment & Society, 15(04), 889-902.
Erikson E.H. (1968), Identity: Youth and Crisis, New York, Norton
Erickson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: W. W Norton.
Greco A.J. (1987), Linking Dimensions of Elderly Market Planning, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4, p. 47-55.
Greco A.J. et Swayne L.E. (1992), Sales Response of elderly consumers to point-of-purchase advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 5 43-53.
Hart J., Shaver P.R. & Goldenberg J.L. (2005), Attachment, self-esteem, worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for a tripartite security system, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 999-1013.
Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E. T., & Kibler, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age norms. Small business economics, 37(2), 219-234.
Kim, S., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Working in retirement: The antecedents of bridge employment and its consequences for quality of life in retirement. Academy of management Journal, 43(6), 1195-1210.
Levesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194.
Maâlaoui, A., Castellano, S., Safraou, I., & Bourguiba, M. (2013). An exploratory study of seniorpreneurs: a new model of entrepreneurial intentions in the French context. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 20(2), 148-164.
McAdams D.P. & Aubin E.S. (1992), « A Theory of Generativity and its Assessment Through Self-Report, Behavioral Acts, and Narrative Themes in Autobiography », Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No. 62, p. 1003-1015.
Moschis G.P. (1994), Consumer behavior in later life: multidisciplinary contributions and implications for research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 3, 195-204.
Moschis G.P. (1996), Life stages of the mature market, American demographics, 18, 9, 44.
Ostroff J. (1989), Successful Marketing to the 50+ Consumer: How to Capture One of the Biggest and Fastest Growing Markets in America, Ed. Prentice Hall, p. 371.
Rabl, T., & del Carmen Triana, M. (2014). Organizational value for age diversity and potential applicants’ organizational attraction: Individual attitudes matter. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 403-417.
Routledge and Arndt (2005), Time and Terror: Managing temporal consciousness and the awareness of mortality. In A. Strathman & J. Joireman (Eds.), Understanding behavior in the context of time: Theory, research and applicaions (pp. 59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saba, T. (2014), «Promoting Active Aging : The Canadian Experience of Bridge Employment», dans Alcover, C. M., Topa Cantisano, G., Depolo, M., Fraccaroli, F. et Parry, E. (éds), Research Handbook in Bridge Employment, chapitre 11, Londres : Routledge.
Schewe C. (1989), « Effective Communication with our Aging Population », Business Horizons, 32, 1, 19-25.
Smith, R. B., & Moschis, G. P. (1984). Consumer Soclalization of the Elderly: an Exploratory Study. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11.
Vanhamme, J. (2001). The Decline of the Senses: The Impact on Consumers (Age When Designing Products, Services and Stores, Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, Bergen
Wisse, B., van Eijbergen, R., Rietzschel, E. F., & Scheibe, S. (2015). Catering to the Needs of an Aging Workforce: The Role of Employee Age in the Relationship Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-14.


Deadline for submissions is October 1st, 2019. For more information, please feel free to contact: Adnane Maalaoui ( Manuscripts must be submitted through the JOCM ScholarOne page

and author guidelines must be followed, see here.

 CALL FOR PAPERS Journal of Family Business Management Special Issue on “Responsible Ownershipin Family Firms: a focus on the Family”

SI_JFBM_Responsible Ownership_Final

Guest Editors:

Luis Díaz-Matajira (, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

Kathleen Randerson (, Audencia Business School, France

Joshua J. Daspit (, Texas State University, USA

Cristina Aragón-Amonarriz (, Deusto Business School, Spain

Manuscript Submission Deadline: OCTOBER 1, 2019

The family’s involvement in firm governance is noted as a core driver that creates heterogeneity among family firms (Daspit, Chrisman, Sharma, Pearson, & Mahto, 2018). This form of governance allows the family to exert decision-making influence and control in the firm, while also pursuing actions that are for the good of the family (Carney, 2005). Although this governance form allows the family to exert control over the firm, the goals of the family and firm are not always aligned, and, in fact, can be quite divergent. Thus, for both the business and the family to succeed, responsible decision-making and responsible actions are paramount.

Responsible ownership is defined as the “active and long-term commitment to the family, the business, and the community, and [the ability to balance] these commitments with each other” (Lambrecht & Uhlaner, 2005). A responsible owner engages in behavior that serves the collective good of both the owners and the firm (Uhlaner, Flӧren, & Geerlings, 2007). When the family is in a governance role, responsible family ownership manifests when the family, as a group, is committed to balancing the rights and privileges of ownership with a long-term commitment to family and other (nonfamily) stakeholders of the firm (Aragón-Amonarriz, Arredondo, & Iturrioz-Landart, 2017).

Although studies are beginning to examine the effect of responsible ownership on family firm assets and outcomes (e.g., Berent-Braun & Uhlaner, 2012), even less is known about how family firms develop and sustain responsible ownership across generations. For example, Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2017) suggest that family social capital preserves responsible family ownership across generations, yet Bergamaschi and Randerson (2016) note that differing types of family firms yield varied preferences for engaging in socially responsible actions. Further, while researchers are beginning to examine the various pathways used by families to instill responsible ownership in the future generation, these processes, intentions, and norms vary greatly across geographical and cultural contexts (e.g., González Couture & Díaz Matajira, 2015).

In all, given the nascent nature of insights and the growing importance of responsible governance, a special issue on responsible ownership promises to offers a substantial advancement to the field of family business. The objective of this special issue is to publish theoretical and empirical work that highlights notable progress and furthers understanding of responsible ownership in the family firm. A non-exhaustive list of possible topics includes:

  • How do family members become responsible owners? How do family firms strategicallyprepare current and next generation owners?
  • What is the role played by family values and/or different types of reciprocity in developingresponsible ownership that is sustainable in the family firm?
  • What theories from family science offer advanced understanding of how responsible familyownership is developed and leveraged in the family firm?
  • What are the effects of cultural, economic, institutional, and other contextual influences onresponsible ownership and the family?
  • How do family owners balance the responsibility of serving multiple stakeholders with oftendivergent interests?
  • How does responsible family ownership (simultaneously) affect family and firm financial,nonfinancial internal, and nonfinancial external outcomes?


Submission Guidelines: All submissions are subject to a standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for Journal of Family Business Management. Final manuscripts are to be submitted via the journal’s submission system ( no later than October 1, 2019. Authors should indicate “Special Issue” as the manuscript type and must clearly specify that the submission is for the special issue on “Responsible Ownership in Family Firms” in the cover letter. Publication of this Special Issue is expected for 2021. Workshop: Authors interested in further developing an idea for this special issue are encouraged (but not required) to submit an abstract to the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) meeting that will be held at Audencia Business School in Nantes, France, May 23-25, 2019. The deadline for submitting conference abstracts is January 21, 2019. All conference submissions are to be made via the EIASM submission system ( Please note that acceptance to the workshop does not guarantee nor is it required for acceptance to the special issue. REFERENCES

Aragón-Amonarriz, C., Arredondo, A. M., & Iturrioz-Landart, C. (2017). How can responsible family ownership be sustained across generations? A family social capital approach. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3728-7

Bergamaschi, M., & Randerson, K. (2016). The futures of family businesses and the development of corporate social responsibility. Futures, 75, 54-65.

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265

Berent-Braun, M. M., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2012). Family governance practices and teambuilding: Paradox of the enterprising family. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 103-119.

Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Mahto, R. V. (2018). Governance as a source of family firm heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 293-300.

González Couture, G., & Díaz Matajira, L. (2015). The next generation: Pathways for preparing and involving new owners in Colombian family businesses. In P. Sharma, N. Auletta, R.-L. DeWitt, M. J. Parada, & M. Yusof (Eds.), Developing Next Generation Leaders for Transgenerational Entrepreneurial Family Enterprises (p. 49-75). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Lambrecht, J. & Uhlaner, L.M. (2005). Responsible ownership of the family business: State-of-the-art, position paper prepared for FBN-

IFERA World Academic Research forum, EHSAL, Brussels, September.

Uhlaner, L.M., Flören, R. & Geerlings, J.R. (2007). Ownership commitment, family ownership and performance in the privately-held firm, Small Business Economics Journal, 29(3), 275-293.

Deadline Extension EAP4 Conference abstract deadline+ Call for Papers Special Issue Organization Studies

Good news! The Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference Organizing Committee has decided to extend the deadline of abstract submission to the 4th EAP Conference, which will take place from 3-5 April 2019. The new deadline is now on 15 December 2018.

In addition we are happy to announce that we shall be selecting 12 of the best papers submitted during the Conference to participate in the Organization Studies Special Issue (“Organizational and Institutional Entrepreneuring: Processes and Practices of Creating in an Organized World”) Paper Development Workshop scheduled on the 6th of April 2019.

Participants will also be offered to submit their paper to the “Research Handbook on Entrepreneurship as Practice”, Research Handbooks  in Business and Management series, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Please find attached the revised Call for Papers for the Conference with the new deadlines, as well as the Call for Papers for the Organization Studies Special Issue and for the Research handbook on EaP.

Call for Entrepreneurship as Practice Conference EAP4

Call for Special Issue – Organization Studies – Entrepreneuring

Call for papers – research handbook – Entrepreneurship as Practice

CfP Special Issue – Entreprendre & Innover – L’éducation entrepreneuriale

Editeurs du dossier :

Caroline VERZAT, ESCP Europe,

Saulo DUBARD BARBOSA, emlyon business school,

Stéphane FOLIARD, Université Jean Monnet, St-Etienne,

Mohsen TAVAKOLI, emlyon business school & Université Grenoble Alpes (CERAG).

Appel à com EI n 40 – éducation Entrepreneuriale

Depuis plusieurs années, l’entrepreneuriat est proposé comme une solution pour la crise économique et socio-environnementale qui touche les sociétés modernes. Les acteurs et décideurs de tous les niveaux ont saisi cette prise de conscience collective et ont fortement misé sur le développement de l’entrepreneuriat et l’entrepreneuriat social. Aujourd’hui, après 70 ans du premier cours en entrepreneuriat enseigné à Harvard Business School, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat est présent aux quatre coins du monde et se fait à tous les niveaux au sein de ifférents cadres institutionnels et disciplinaires.

Au niveau européen, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat a trouvé une place prépondérante au sein des stratégies de l’Union Européenne (i.e. Europe 2020) notamment par l’agenda d’Oslo de 2006 et le plan d’action « Entrepreneurship 2020 »3. Les objectifs visés par ses mesures étaient de non seulement sensibiliser les apprentis, mais aussi de leur permettre d’apprendre l’entrepreneuriat par la pratique. Sur le plan national, le socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de la culture prévoit qu’à la fin de sa scolarité obligatoire « L’élève sait prendre des initiatives, entreprendre et mettre en oeuvre des projets… » (“Socle commun de connaissances, de compétences et de culture,” n.d.). La loi du 4 août 2008 de modernisation de l’économie a instauré un nouveau statut pour les entrepreneurs individuels : autoentrepreneur,

L’éducation entrepreneuriale

pour faire face à la crise croissante de l’emploi. Après avoir organisé des assises de l’entrepreneuriat en 2013, le gouvernement français a décidé de donner encore plus d’élan à l’entrepreneuriat. La loi de refondation de l’école de la république de 2013 stipule l’intégration des nouvelles mesures destinées à sensibiliser les élèves de la 6ème à la terminale à l’entrepreneuriat4. En outre, l’introduction du statut étudiant-entrepreneur et les Pépites ainsi que le programme « French Tech » à la même époque ont démontré, encore une fois, la volonté des acteurs politiques de promouvoir le développement de l’entrepreneuriat en France.

Emblématique, le terme « startup nation » est de plus en plus présent dans les discours. En même temps, de nombreuses initiatives émanant du secteur privé et associatif visent à soutenir les futurs entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs’ Organisation, Endeavor, Young Entrepreneurs Alliance, Ashoka, Enactus, Fondation Edward Lowe et fondation Kauffman en sont des exemples importants à l’international. En France, Entreprendre pour Apprendre, le Réseau et la fondation Entreprendre, Les entrepreneuriales, font partie des structures visant à inciter et soutenir l’entrepreneuriat auprès de divers segments de la population.

Face à cette profusion de politiques et d’initiatives visant à diffuser et à enseigner l’entrepreneuriat, et compte tenu de l’importance des ressources mobilisées, l’éducation entrepreneuriale devient un sujet de plus en plus pertinent. Or, si les recherches scientifiques ont répondu à la question « peut-on enseigner l’entrepreneuriat ? »5, elles laissent beaucoup de questions ouvertes sur pourquoi et comment l’enseigner, comment suivre et mesurer l’apprentissage, quels objectifs pédagogiques privilégier, quelle place pour la théorie et pour la pratique, entre autres.

Afin de prolonger le débat sur ces questions, nous proposons à la revue Entreprendre et Innover de publier un numéro spécial consacré à l’éducation entrepreneuriale. Ce numéro est l’occasion de connecter chercheurs, praticiens et éducateurs en entrepreneuriat, afin d’établir un panorama des pratiques pédagogiques innovantes, une revue de recherches récentes à destination des éducateurs, ainsi que revue(s) de lecture, entretien(s), et une tribune ouverte aux éducateurs, étudiants, entrepreneurs et chercheurs. Nous sommes particulièrement ouverts à des contributions portant sur les débats suivants :

  • Les pratiques de l’éducation entrepreneuriale (EE) :
    • L’EE a été modélisée par des chercheurs6 mais nous savons peu sur la façon dont ces modèles sont appliqués dans chaque contexte éducatif. Quels objectifs (création d’entreprise, acquisition de connaissances, de compétences, d’esprit d’entreprendre au sens large…) sont priorisés pour quels niveaux et quels profils d’apprenants ? Quels sont les principes pédagogiques poursuivis, les philosophies éducatives sous-jacentes, les activités proposées ?
    • Peut-on parler de méthodes éducatives entrepreneuriales spécifiques pour enseigner notamment la construction des opportunités et l’affrontement de l’incertitude ? Dans quelle mesure l’EE fait elle évoluer la forme scolaire traditionnelle ?
    • Les outils numériques ont-ils un rôle spécifique à jouer dans l’EE ? Quelles sont les conséquences (positives ou négatives) de leur intégration aux programmes d’EE ?
    • Quels acteurs défendent et pratiquent l’EE : quels enseignants ? quels partenaires extérieurs ? quelles directions d’établissement ? L’EE fait elle évoluer les postures des enseignants, leur sentiment d’efficacité, leur professionnalité perçue et reconnue ?
  • L’évaluation et la mesure d’impact de l’EE :
    • Qu’est-ce que l’efficacité et l’impact d’un dispositif d’EE ? Comment les mesurer : quels indicateurs, quel processus d’évaluation formative et certificative, à quelle(s) temporalité(s) ?
    • L’EE donne-t-elle un statut spécifique à l’essai, l’erreur et à l’échec dans le processus d’apprentissage et dans l’évaluation ?
    • A quelles conditions (d’objectifs poursuivis, de postures des enseignants, de publics, d’insertion dans le curriculum, de gouvernance institutionnelle…) l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat permet-il de (re)motiver les apprenants ? de les (ré)engager dans le processus d’apprentissage ? L’EE répond-elle de manière satisfaisante aux attentes des politiques publiques en matière d’insertion sociale et professionnelle des jeunes, de réduction du chômage, de contribution au développement économique et local…
  • Les questionnements critiques vis-à-vis de l’EE :
    • Les croyances, valeurs et paradigmes sous-jacents aux dispositifs éducatifs sont-elles claires pour tous les acteurs ? Quelles finalités affichées ou implicites font sens pour les différents acteurs impliqués ?
    • Dans quelle mesure l’EE peut-elle être considérée comme un véhicule idéologique d’un certain type de politique éducative ?
    • L’EE permet-elle d’augmenter effectivement le pouvoir d’agir de tous ou metelle insidieusement en place un processus de sélection sociale donnant l’illusion que chacun peut devenir autonome ?
  • La place du chercheur et de la recherche en EE :
    • Comment les études scientifiques peuvent venir en aide à l’éducateur en entrepreneuriat ? Comment pouvons-nous renforcer le lien entre le chercheur et l’éducateur ?
    • Quelles approches méthodologiques utiliser pour étudier la réalité des pratiques éducatives en entrepreneuriat ?

Les dates principales à retenir sont :

  • 01/10/2018 : Soumission des textes originaux
  • 01/01/2019 : Retour vers les auteurs
  • 10/03/2019 : Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés
  • 01/07/2019 : Publication du numéro

Soumissions (également accessible à : )

Les consignes aux auteurs sont accessibles ici: Consignes aux auteurs E&I – janvier 2014. Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission. Les articles doivent être envoyés exclusivement en format Word à Elisabeth GELAS à l’adresse gelas@em‐ en mentionnant le titre de l’appel en objet et le N° corespondant.

Il est expressément demandé aux auteurs de joindre à leur soumission d’article les documents suivants (disponibles sur le site de la revue) dûment remplis:

  • La fiche descriptive disponible ici: Fiche soumission d’article E&I – janvier 2014.
  • La déclaration d’honneur anti‐plagiat disponible ici: Déclaration anti‐plagiat 2014‐0824

Veuillez prendre note que sans ces documents, l’article ne pourra pas être examiné par la rédaction.

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.

Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World : Dimensions for Success. The World Bank. Retrieved from

European Commission, 2013a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe. COM(2012) 795 final. [pdf] Available at: [Consulté le 15 Décembre 2017)

Voir l’article de Fayolle et al de 2016 (note n°1) et Fayolle, A. (2012). Entrepreneuriat-2e ed.: Apprendre à entreprendre. Dunod. Paris

Voir par exemple :Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 22–43.

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

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 – – EMLYON Business School

Michela Loi – – Department of Economic and Business Sciences – University of Cagliari

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

Pablo Martin de Holan – – MBS College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Saudi Arabia


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.


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:

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:; and a sample of the “Dialogue” section:

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.


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 by April 30th 2018.Submissions should be prepared according to the Author Guidelines found at
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 (
William B. Gartner (
Ulla Hytti (
Diamanto Politis (
David Rae (

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 :