Call For Papers – Entreprendre & Innover – Esprit d’entreprendre, es-tu toujours là ? L’éducation en entrepreneuriat – Approches critiques

Appel à contribution E&I#51- éducation en Entrepreneuriat approches critiques VDEF

Call for papers E&I#51 – Entrepreneurship education critical approaches VDEF

English Below

Éditeurs : Stéphane Foliard, Sandrine Le Pontois, Michela Loi, Olivier Toutain

« Pleinement mature mais pas totalement légitime ». Les mots de Katz en 2008 nous appellent encore aujourd’hui à questionner l’éducation en entrepreneuriat. Cette légitimité, comme ses attendus, ne sont pas partagés par tous et de nombreuses résistances au déploiement de l’entrepreneuriat dans les écoles et universités subsistent. Gagner en légitimité suppose de répondre aux attentes de nombreuses parties prenantes (Foliard et al., 2019) et, par un éclairage scientifique, d’aller au-delà des représentations pour comprendre et accompagner des phénomènes complexes, questionner leurs fondements, leurs raisons d’être, leur adéquation avec les aspirations de notre société.

L’objectif de ce numéro spécial de la revue Entreprendre & Innover est d’explorer les « allant de soi » de la recherche en éducation en entrepreneuriat : les idéologies qui la sous-tendent, les hypothèses dominantes, les discours et leurs éléments de langage, les publics étudiés ou les méthodologies utilisées. L’éducation en entrepreneuriat et l’accompagnement des élèves et étudiants entrepreneurs sont annoncés de manière très optimiste et volontariste aux niveaux politiques, économiques, académiques et médiatiques comme un moyen de transformer les individus, les écosystèmes locaux et les sociétés en général vers un espace où l’entrepreneuriat est créateur de valeur et de bien-être. Les modèles d’enseignement utilisés visent à faire vivre l’expérience entrepreneuriale au plus près de la réalité de terrain à des jeunes novices à tous les niveaux. L’idéologie néo libérale sous-jacente, l’entrepreneurialisme (Dejardin, et S. Luc, 2016), place la notion d’entreprendre au centre d’un système de pensée et d’action et instaure l’entrepreneuriat et la recherche de nouveauté comme les comportements individuels et collectifs attendus. Elle infuse dans les programmes d’éducation, l’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat est présent aux quatre coins du monde et se fait à tous les niveaux des différents cadres institutionnels et disciplinaires (Valerio, Parton, & Robb, 2014). Cette idéologie justifie alors l’entrepreneuriat comme une expérience à vivre pour les étudiants en identifiant et développant chez eux les apprentissages les transformant en de potentiels entrepreneurs.

L’entrepreneuriat est un phénomène complexe susceptible de revêtir des formes très variées. Son enseignement suit cette diversité avec une profusion des programmes et une grande diversité dans leur mise en œuvre. Les connaissances, compétences, habiletés et attitudes développées dans ces programmes façonnent l’identité entrepreneuriale et participent de l’esprit d’entreprendre. Adhérant au discours hégémonique, les dispositifs reproduisent la figure héroïque de l’entrepreneur (Germain et Jacquemin, 2017) que les étudiants doivent chercher à atteindre. Si l’éducation en entrepreneuriat n’a pour résultats attendus que l’augmentation du nombre d’entreprises ainsi que la hausse de la valeur et des emplois créés, alors les approches fonctionnalistes (Jennings, Perren et Carter, 2005) largement majoritaires dans la tradition académique sont suffisantes et permettent, de gap en gap, d’expliquer la cohésion et le développement consensuel de nos sociétés autour de l’entrepreneurialisme.

Mais les réalités du terrain semblent loin de ce modèle déterministe et les relations entre éducation en entrepreneuriat et les critères de performance attendus ne sont pas si évidentes et pour le moins difficilement mesurées. De nouveaux éclairages nous semblent nécessaires pour comprendre les dynamiques impactant l’éducation en entrepreneuriat à commencer par la nature de celle-ci. Nos méthodes d’investigation peuvent être questionnées tout comme les fondements épistémologiques de nos recherches. Il en va de même pour la place des discours dominants, hégémoniques, celle de l’entrepreneur « héroïque » ou de l’apprentissage expérientiel, les objectifs de ces enseignements tant au niveau individuel que des choix de société qu’ils sous-tendent, etc.

Ce numéro spécial cherche à interroger cet entrepreneurialisme en éducation en entrepreneuriat et la manière dont il privilégie certaines formes d’enseignement, certains critères de performance, d’évaluation ou de mesure de l’impact pour compléter le champ des possibles. Questionner les fondements théoriques, philosophiques, idéologiques ou méthodologiques de l’éducation en entrepreneuriat revient à interroger un certain nombre de discours dominants et d’éléments considérés comme acquis. Notre objectif ici est de mettre en résonnance des conceptions alternatives, périphériques ou divergentes de l’entrepreneuriat et de son enseignement afin de mieux comprendre les facettes de phénomènes complexes et faire de la place à des perspectives critiques, éthiques, politiques et éducatives nouvelles. Nous souhaitons compléter les efforts critiques menés sur la recherche en entrepreneuriat et en éducation en entrepreneuriat en ouvrant le débat à de nombreuses questions ou controverses.

L’éducation en entrepreneuriat puisant dans de nombreux champs scientifiques, nous invitons les auteurs à utiliser des concepts, outils ou méthodes dans une démarche transdisciplinaire. Nous proposons trois niveaux de questionnements non exclusifs les uns des autres et dont les auteurs pourront se saisir. Le niveau micro est le niveau de l’individu, de l’élève ou de l’étudiant participant à un programme d’éducation en entrepreneuriat. Le niveau méso est le niveau intermédiaire des institutions, des dispositifs d’éducation en entrepreneuriat et des écosystèmes dans lesquels ils s’insèrent. Le niveau macro est le niveau de la société dans son ensemble.

Pour chacun de ces niveaux, nous invitons les auteurs à une large variété de contributions permettant une approche critique de l’éducation en entrepreneuriat. Les questionnements suivants illustrent cette diversité.

Quelles sont les idéologies, les postulats et les discours dominants en éducation en entrepreneuriat ? Quelles philosophies, idéologies ou méthodologies peuvent aider à déconstruire notre vision pour en proposer de nouvelles ?

L’entrepreneuriat est-il un vecteur d’émancipation ? L’utilisation d’outils normés pour concevoir ou développer un projet entrepreneurial ne conduit-elle pas à ce que des projets se voulant innovants se conforment à des règles préétablies ? L’apprentissage expérientiel et l’immersion dans les écosystèmes apportent des connaissances authentiques mais quelle est la part de l’isomorphisme dans ces apprentissages ? Comment éviter le risque de reproduction de l’existant et ouvrir davantage de créativité et d’expression personnelle ? Quelle est la place et le pouvoir des acteurs de l’écosystème entrepreneurial dans les dispositifs d’enseignement ?

L’éducation à, par et en entrepreneuriat se généralise dans nos écoles et universités mais à quelles conditions cela peut-il être une bonne chose ? Tous les jeunes sont-ils destinés à embrasser la carrière entrepreneuriale ? Quels peuvent être les impacts de ces démarches individualistes sur notre société, notre environnement ? Quelles sont les limites et les alternatives à ces politiques éducatives, économiques et sociales ?

L’éducation en entrepreneuriat est souvent inscrite dans un discours optimiste et volontaire prônant la proactivité et la réussite individuelle. En ce sens, les programmes proposent une expérience édulcorée, simplifiée et masquant les côtés obscurs de la réalité entrepreneuriale. Les questions de l’incertitude, des doutes, des peurs, des inhibitions mais aussi des relations de pouvoirs et des comportements opportunistes sont rarement évoquées au profit de ce qui est réalisé ou appris. Quelle est la place de ces côtés obscurs dans l’éducation en entrepreneuriat ? Quelle est la place des émotions ? Quel est le statut de l’individu : un étudiant, un entrepreneur, un étudiant-entrepreneur et pour quelles conséquences ? Quelles méthodologies permettent de saisir cette subjectivité ?

L’éducation en entrepreneuriat comme discipline et champ de recherche est encore jeune et fait face à de nombreuses résistances. Pour gagner en légitimité, elle adopte majoritairement le paradigme fonctionnaliste dominant et cherche à expliquer la société. Les possibilités différentes sont rarement explorées et difficilement explicitées. Quelle est la place de la nature radicale de la recherche ? Comment l’éducation en entrepreneuriat peut-elle transformer la société ? Comment d’autres paradigmes peuvent permettre le débat, la friction, la créativité ?

Ces questionnements visent à ouvrir les horizons de la recherche en éducation en entrepreneuriat et ne sont donc pas exhaustifs. Les auteurs sont invités à proposer des manuscrits permettant un pragmatisme critique et d’envisager positivement les actions à mener pour améliorer les situations individuelles et collectives.

Les dates principales à retenir sont :

01/09/2021 : Soumission des textes originaux
01/11/2021 : Retour vers les auteurs
01/04/2022 : Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés
01/06/2022 : Publication du numéro

Références

Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small business economics, 47(1), 53-76.

Dejardin, M. et S. Luc (2016). « Entrepreneur et entrepreneurialisme. » In D. Uzunidis et A. Tiran, dir. Dictionnaire économique de l’entrepreneur. Paris: Classiques Garnier.

Dejardin, M., Luc, S., & Thurik, R. (2019). Introduction au numéro thématique: la société entrepreneuriale: quelques questions motivant un approfondissement de son examen. Management international/ International Management/ Gestiòn Internacional, 23(5), 15-19.

Foliard, S., Le Pontois, S., Fayolle, A., & Diermann, I. (2018). The legitimacy of teachers in entrepreneurship education: what we can learn from a literature review. Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking Through Multi-Voices, Reflections on Emerging Debates.

Forsstrom-Tuominen, H., Jussila, I., & Goel, S. (2019). Reinforcing collectiveness in entrepreneurial interactions within start-up teams: a multiple-case study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(9-10), 683-709.

Germain, O. & Jacquemin, A. (2017). Voies et voix d’approches critiques en entrepreneuriat. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 16(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.3917/entre.161.0007

Jennings, P. L., Perren, L., & Carter, S. (2005). Guest editors’ introduction: Alternative perspectives on entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 145-152.

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.

Levy, D., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Organization studies, 28(7), 971-991.

Olsson, U., Petersson, K., & Krejsler, J. B. (2011). ‘Youth’Making Us Fit: on Europe as operator of political technologies. European Educational Research Journal, 10(1), 1-10.

Papatsiba, V. (2009). European higher education policy and the formation of entrepreneurial students as future European citizens. European Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 189-203.

Toutain, O., Mueller, S., & Bornard, F. (2019). Decoding entrepreneurship education ecosystems (EEE): A cross-European study in primary, secondary schools and vocational training. Management international/International Management/Gestiòn Internacional, 23(5), 47-65.

Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World : Dimensions for Success. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/b/wbk/wbpubs/18031.html

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. 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 dans la rubrique « Comment contribuer ». Il est impératif de les respecter lorsque vous envoyez votre soumission.

Merci d’envoyer votre soumission sur la plateforme de soumission de la revue :

https://eeti.manuscriptmanager.net

Editors : Stéphane Foliard, Sandrine Le Pontois, Michela Loi, Olivier Toutain

“Fully mature but not fully legitimate”. Katz’s words in 2008 remind us to continue questioning entrepreneurship education. This quest for legitimacy, as well as its expectations, are not shared by all and strong resistance to the deployment of entrepreneurship in schools and universities remains. Gaining legitimacy implies responding to the expectations of many stakeholders (Foliard et al., 2019) and, through a scientific perspective, going beyond representations to understand and support complex phenomena, questioning their foundations, their raison d’être, and their adequacy in relation to the aspirations of our society.

The purpose of this special issue of Entreprendre & Innover is to explore the “taken-for-granteds” in entrepreneurship education research: the ideologies that underlie it, the dominant assumptions, the discourses and their language elements, the samples studied or the methodologies used. Entrepreneurship education and support are heralded in a very optimistic and proactive way at the political, economic, academic and media levels as a means of transforming individuals, local ecosystems and societies. The idea is to promote entrepreneurship that creates value and well-being. The teaching models used aim to bring the entrepreneurial experience as close as possible to the reality of young people, novice entrepreneurs. The underlying neo liberal ideology, entrepreneurialism (Dejardin, & S. Luc, 2016), places entrepreneurship at the centre of a system of thought and action and establishes entrepreneurship and innovation as the expected individual and collective behaviors. Infused into educational programs, entrepreneurship education is present around the world and takes place at all levels of different institutional and disciplinary frameworks (Valerio, Parton, & Robb, 2014). This ideology then justifies entrepreneurship as an experience for students by identifying and developing in them the learning that transforms them into potential entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurship is a complex phenomenon that can take many forms. Entrepreneurship education follows this diversity with a profusion of programmes and great diversity in their implementation. The knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes promoted in these programs shape entrepreneurial identity and contribute to the entrepreneurial spirit. Adhering to the hegemonic discourse, the pedagogical activities reproduce the heroic figure of the entrepreneur (Germain and Jacquemin, 2017) that students must seek to achieve. If the expected results of entrepreneurship education are more businesses, more value, more and better jobs, then the functionalist approaches (Jennings, Perren and Carter, 2005), which continue to prevail in the academic tradition, are sufficient. They make it possible to explain, gap by gap, the cohesion and consensual development of our societies around entrepreneurship.

But the realities on the ground seem far removed from this deterministic model and the relationship between entrepreneurship education and expected performance criteria is not so obvious and, to say the least, difficult to measure. New insights are needed to understand the dynamics impacting entrepreneurship education, starting with the nature of entrepreneurship education. Our methods of investigation can be questioned, along with the epistemological foundations that guide our research. The same goes for the place ascribed to dominant, hegemonic discourses, the prominence of the “heroic” entrepreneur or of experiential learning, the purpose of these teachings both at the individual level and the societal choices they underlie, etc.

This special issue seeks to question this entrepreneurialism in entrepreneurship education and the way in which it privileges certain forms of teaching, certain performance standards, as well as evaluation or impact measurement criteria to complete the field of possibilities. Questioning the theoretical, philosophical, ideological or methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education means questioning a certain number of dominant discourses and elements that are taken for granted. Our purpose here is to bring alternative, peripheral or divergent conceptions of entrepreneurship and its teaching into resonance in order to better understand the facets of complex phenomena and to make room for new critical, ethical, political and educational perspectives. We wish to complement critical efforts in entrepreneurship research and entrepreneurship education by opening up the debate to a wide range of issues or controversies.

Entrepreneurship education draws from many scientific fields and we encourage a transdisciplinary approach when harnessing concepts, tools or methods. We propose three levels of reflection that are not mutually exclusive and that the authors can take up. At the micro level we find the individual, the student involved in an entrepreneurship education program. The meso level relates to that of intermediate institutions, entrepreneurship education systems and the ecosystems in which they are embedded. The macro level is the level of society as a whole.

For each of these levels, we invite a wide variety of contributions that allow for a critical approach to entrepreneurship education. The following questions illustrate this diversity:

– What are the dominant ideologies, assumptions and discourses in entrepreneurship education? What philosophies, ideologies or methodologies can help deconstruct our vision and propose new ones?

Is entrepreneurship a vector of emancipation? Is it not true that the use of standardized tools to design or develop an entrepreneurial project leading to innovative projects will conform to pre-established rules? Experiential learning and immersion in ecosystems provide authentic knowledge, but what is the role of isomorphism in this learning? How can we avoid the risk of reproducing what already exists and open up more creativity and self-expression? What is the place and the power of the actors within the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the teaching systems? What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurial emancipation?

Education to, by and in entrepreneurship is becoming more widespread in our schools and universities, but under what conditions can this be a good thing? Are all young people destined to embrace an entrepreneurial career? What impact can these individualistic approaches have on our society and our environment? What are the limits and alternatives to these educational, economic and social policies?

Entrepreneurship education is often inscribed in an optimistic and purposeful discourse advocating proactivity and individual success. In this sense, programmes offer a watered-down, simplified experience that masks the dark side of entrepreneurial reality. Questions of uncertainty, doubts, fears, inhibitions, but also power relations and opportunistic behaviors are rarely raised in favor of what is achieved or learned. What is the place of these dark sides in entrepreneurship education? What is the place of emotions? What is the status of the individual: a student, an entrepreneur, a student-entrepreneur and for what consequences? What methodologies allow us to grasp this subjectivity?

Entrepreneurship education as a discipline and field of research is still young and is facing a lot of resistance. To gain legitimacy, it mostly adopts the dominant functionalist paradigm and seeks to explain society. The different possibilities are rarely explored and difficult to explain. What is the place of the radical nature of research? How can entrepreneurship education transform society? How can other paradigms allow for debate, friction, creativity?

These questions are intended to open the horizons of research in entrepreneurship education and are therefore not exhaustive. Authors are invited to propose manuscripts that allow for critical pragmatism and to envisage positively the actions to be taken to improve individual and collective situations.

The main dates to remember are :

01/09/2021 : Submission of papers
01/11/2021 : Feedback to authors
01/04/2022 : Deadline for submission of revised papers
01/06/2022 : Publication of the issue

References

Dejardin, M. et S. Luc (2016). « Entrepreneur et entrepreneurialisme. » In D. Uzunidis et A. Tiran, dir. Dictionnaire économique de l’entrepreneur. Paris: Classiques Garnier.

Germain, O. & Jacquemin, A. (2017). Voies et voix d’approches critiques en entrepreneuriat. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, vol. 16(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.3917/entre.161.0007

Jennings, P. L., Perren, L., & Carter, S. (2005). Guest editors’ introduction: Alternative perspectives on entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 145-152.

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.

Levy, D., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields. Organization studies, 28(7), 971-991.

Olsson, U., Petersson, K., & Krejsler, J. B. (2011). ‘Youth’Making Us Fit: on Europe as operator of political technologies. European Educational Research Journal, 10(1), 1-10.

Papatsiba, V. (2009). European higher education policy and the formation of entrepreneurial students as future European citizens. European Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 189-203.

Editorial line

Entreprendre et Innover is a high-level vulgarisation journal in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation published by DeBoeck University. Its ambition is to make original, scientifically sound or innovative articles available to a readership of executives, entrepreneurs, professionals in business creation networks and business leaders. The journal is open to ALL disciplines and to ALL points of view interested in entrepreneurship and innovation.

As this review is primarily aimed at practitioners, we are careful to ensure that the contributions are concerned with practical applications, business implications and/or policy recommendations. With this in mind, contributions should :

have a section making explicit reference to these concerns: the reader should always be able to say at the end of the reading: so what? how does this article help me to act or to improve my future actions?
adopt more concrete and operational language than is customary in academic journals: theory should not be absent but popularised, i.e. translated into simple terms. Abstract concepts should be made explicit and/or illustrated with practical examples.

not accumulate scientific references: The aim is to select a few reference authors useful for understanding the subject, not to show the completeness of the academic literature on the subject. Scientific references should be cited exclusively through footnotes.

Detailed instructions to authors are available on the journal’s website in the “How to contribute” section. It is imperative that you respect them when sending your submission.

Please upload your submission on the journal’s submission platform:

https://eeti.manuscriptmanager.net

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

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

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

Convenors and Guest editors

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

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

Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

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

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

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

Background and objectives of the Dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process

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

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

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

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

Submission process

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entrepreneurship Education rethinking connexions Roanne 2019

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

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

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

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

Practices of entrepreneurship education (EE):

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

Assessment and impact measurement of EE:

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

Critical questions about EE:

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

The role of researchers and of research in EE:

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

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

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

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE – EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Entreprendre & Innover

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

CREE and ENGAGE

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

GUEST SPEAKERS:

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

Peter BAUR – DG Education and Culture – European Commission

COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES

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

SAVE THE DATE

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

Special issue publication
March the 1st 2019
Summer 2019

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

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

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

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

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