Abstract
Entrepreneurship education has long been framed as a crucial component of the entrepreneurial university and its corresponding economic impact. The predominantly commercial focus of academic entrepreneurship, however, potentially limits theorizing about how academic units not otherwise involved in entrepreneurship contribute to the entrepreneurial university. Following recent calls for scholars to conceptualize transversal approaches to entrepreneurship education, this paper examines the design and delivery of lean social launch (LSL), a socially oriented derivative of the emerging lean launch method. We find that by broadening the context in which opportunities are identified and value is created, LSL attracts individuals who might not otherwise participate in entrepreneurial activities. Further, LSL provides participants with pathways to social and commercial value creation and serves as a venue for socially focused entrepreneurial identity play, an important antecedent to entrepreneurial behavior. Implications for the conceptualization of the entrepreneurial university and its policy and programmatic supports are explored.
Plain English Summary
Socially oriented entrepreneurship education approach attracts diverse students and expands the impact of entrepreneurial universities. How might we expand the impact of entrepreneurial universities? In this paper, we present a case of using socially oriented entrepreneurship education, called the lean social launch (LSL), that bridges the teaching and impact missions of the universities. Our analysis shows that the method’s focus on addressing social problems, emphasis on feasible solution development, and requirement for continual engagement with community partners attracts and empowers diverse student groups that might not otherwise participate in entrepreneurship education. Further, these courses help students develop an early-stage entrepreneurial identity and provide pathways to create real social impact in their communities. We also discuss several management and policy challenges associated with course delivery, the most surprising of which is the difficulty of working with other entrepreneurship support programs to support and scale student enterprises.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: authors
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The emergence of the third mission in the entrepreneurial university literature may be contrasted with the emergence of the third mission among U.S. land grand universities, including supporting agriculture experimentation stations and cooperative extension programs, that support the development and productivity of the American agricultural sector. See McDowell (2001) for a discussion of the rise and decline of the concept within this context.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/i-corps/about.jsp (Accessed May 3, 2022).
Though one of the co-authors (Hayter) was involved in all LSL modalities, thus ensuring adherence to the underlying lean launch curriculum, the other co-authors made significant contributions to the design and delivery of the course.
Also discussed in Sect. 4.4 below, all courses were marketed by program coordinators within their respective departments, at which time they students were informed of its relatively unique format and that the course could serve as alternative to a course required by their degree program. For example, undergraduate students in a leadership-oriented minor program took our LSL derivative in fulfillment of a social entrepreneurship requirement. However, these students also had access to other sections of the same course but taught in a more traditional lecture format.
Value creation is a crucial component of the underlying lean launch methodology manifest in the perceived “value proposition” of a specific product or service. The extent to which a product or services matches market demand is termed product-market fit (Shepherd & Gruber, 2021), the ultimate success of which is proxied by sustained sales. Product-market fit may be achieved over time as individuals iteratively develop a better understanding of the target market segment and simultaneously adapt their product or service based on this enhanced understanding. One of the key challenges to social value creation is in the reliability and validity of impact measures (Morris et al., 2021).
Before client discovery interviews begin, teams construct a “value chain” to visually illustrate their hypothesized solution and how it functions. Early illustration is usually too abstract which leads to general responses from interviewees (e.g., “I like the concept” or “I think it is a good idea.”). However, participants were coached by instructors and involved community partners to provide greater specification and subsequently used these illustrations to illicit detailed feedback, especially related to why their solution might not work, and what approaches might work better.
For an example of a socially-oriented derivative of a business model canvas, see https://stanford.edu/dept/gsb-ds/Inkling/The_Impact_BMC/index.html.
These programs may also require students to complete an internship and/or senior capstone course. However, students are generally not required to “create” or “evaluate,” as illustrated by Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Student grades are comprised mostly of a team score based on the quality of their client discovery, go/no-go determinations, evidence in support of their decision, and collective professionalism. The remaining grade proportion is comprised of a peer review score whereby individuals are evaluated by their team based on their responsiveness, reliability, and relative team contribution.
While our sample includes data from delivery of LSL at four different universities, data from this section are derived primarily from a public research university in the Southwest region of the United States.
For example, among the top five universities in the USA in terms of the number of engineering graduates, including Georgia Institute of Technology, Texas A&M-College Station, Purdue University, Arizona State University, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 75.6 percent are male and 47.7 percent white. See https://datausa.io/profile/cip/engineering#demographics (Accessed May 24, 2022).
References
Abreu, M., Demirel, P., Grinevich, V., & Karataş-Özkan, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial practices in research-intensive and teaching-led universities. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 695–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9754-5
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Arkilic, E. (2019). Raising the NSF Innovation Corps. In M. Wisnioski, E. Hintz, & M. Kleine (Eds.), Does America Need More Innovators? (pp. 69–82). The MIT Press.
Arranz, N., Ubierna, F., Arroyabe, M. F., Perez, C., & Fdez de Arroyabe, J. C. (2017). The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university students’ entrepreneurial intention and competences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 1979-2008https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130030
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095
Baker, T., & Powell, E. E. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a new liberal art. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0099-0
Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5, Part 2), 9–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/258724
Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (1992).The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(4), 1137–1160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118383
Beech, N. (2011). Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Human Relations, 64(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710371235
Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorization. Higher Education, 59(5), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2
Bienkowska, D., Klofsten, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2016). PhD students in the entrepreneurial university-perceived support for academic entrepreneurship. European Journal of Education, 51(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12160
Bill Aulet, B., Hargadon, A., Pittaway, P., Brush, C., and Alpi, S. (2018). What I have learned about teaching entrepreneurship: perspectives of five master educators. In C. H. Matthews, & E. W. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy-2018, (pp. 2–26). Edward Elgar.
Blank, S. (2013a). The four steps to epiphany: Successful strategies for products that win. K&S Ranch.
Blank, S. (2013b). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72. https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything. Accessed 1 Apr 2023.
Bocken, N., & Snihur, Y. (2020). Lean startup and the business model: Experimenting for novelty and impact. Long Range Planning, 53(4), 101953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101953
Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000048
Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016
Byrne, J., Fayolle, A., & Toutain, O. (2014). Entrepreneurship education: What we know and what we need to know. In E. Chell & M. Karatas-Özkan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (pp. 261–288). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship ecosystems: An agent-based simulation approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9466-7
Carl, J., & Menter, M. (2021). The social impact of universities: Assessing the effects of the three university missions on social engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5), 965–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1896803
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 359–380). Sage.
Choi, J., Jeong, S., & Kehoe, C. (2012). Women in entrepreneurship education in US higher Education. Journal of Business Diversity, 12(2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2012.17875abstract
Cohen, D., Hsu, D. K., & Shinnar, R. S. (2021).Identifying innovative opportunities in the entrepreneurship classroom: A new approach and empirical test. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1931-1955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00387-z
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In J. Corbin & A. Strauss (Eds.), Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, (3rd ed.), (pp. 65–86). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313(5787), 665–667. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1124832
Duval-Couetil, N., Ladisch, M., & Yi, S. (2021). Addressing academic researcher priorities through science and technology entrepreneurship education. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(2), 288–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09787-5
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTG.2004.004551
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12065
Fayolle, A., Liñán, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2014). Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: Values and motivations in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0306-7
Felin, T., Gambardella, A., Stern, S., & Zenger, T. (2019). Lean startup and the business model: Experimentation revisited. Long Range Planning (Open Access), 53(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.06.002
Ferrante, F., Federici, D., & Parisi, V. (2019). The entrepreneurial engagement of Italian university students: Some insights from a population-based survey. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1813–1836. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1458223
Fini, R., Rasmussen, E., Siegel, D., & Wiklund, J. (2018). Rethinking the commercialization of public science: From entrepreneurial outcomes to societal impacts. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0206
Gibb, A. (2005). Towards the entrepreneurial university. Entrepreneurship education as a lever for change. A policy paper for the national council for graduate entrepreneurship. https://www.ncge.org.uk. Accessed 1 Apr 2023.
Gibb, A. (2007). Creating the entrepreneurial university: Do we need a wholly different model of entrepreneurship. In A. Fayole (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education (pp. 67–103). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gibb, A., & Hannon, P. (2006). Towards the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4(1), 73–110.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Grimes, M. G. (2018). The pivot: How founders respond to feedback through idea and identity work. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1692–1717. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0823
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0482
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.008
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9755-4
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Gajón, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial university ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: Do entrepreneurship education programmes and university business incubators matter? Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2019-0439
Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2019). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
Hayter, C. (2016a). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 633–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3
Hayter, C. (2016b). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45(2), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.003
Hayter, C. S., & Cahoy, D. R. (2018). Toward a strategic view of higher education social responsibilities: A dynamic capabilities approach. Strategic Organization, 16(1), 12–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016680564
Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2022). Governance mechanisms enabling inter-organizational adaptation: Lessons from grand challenge R&D programs. Science and Public Policy, 47(2), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa003
Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1237–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9470-y
Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1039–1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5
Hayter, C. S., Rasmussen, E., & Rooksby, J. H. (2020). Beyond formal university technology transfer: Innovative pathways for knowledge exchange. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9677-1
Hayter, C. S., Fischer, B., & Rasmussen, E. (2022). Becoming an academic entrepreneur: How scientists develop an entrepreneurial identity. Small Business Economics, 59, 1469–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00585-3
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education+ Training, 47(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910510586524
Hoppe, M., Westerberg, M., & Leffler, E. (2017). Educational approaches to entrepreneurship in higher education: A view from the Swedish horizon. Education+ Training, 59(7/8), 751–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2016-0177
Howorth, C., Smith, S. M., & Parkinson, C. (2012). Social learning and social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0022
Ibarra, H., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2010). Identity work and play. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811011017180
Jensen, U. T., Helby Petersen, O., Jacobsen, C. B., Jessen Hansen, J. A., & Maroulis, S. (2022). Co-producing field experiments in public management research: A guide to enhanced research–practice collaboration. Public Management Review, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2083848
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education: A study of Iranian students’ entrepreneurial intentions and opportunity identification. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12137
Kim, Y., & Maroulis, S. (2018). Rethinking social welfare fraud from a complex adaptive systems perspective. Administration & Society, 50(1), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715587520
Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change-Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004
Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.
Lackéus, M. (2014). An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.06.005
Lackéus, M. (2015). ). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. For Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – Local Employment and Economic Development (LEED) program: 360 Background Paper. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-education.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2023.
Lackéus, M. (2016). Value creation as educational practice–towards a new educational philosophy grounded in entrepreneurship? (Doctoral dissertation). Chalmers University of Technology.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm020
Loi, M., & Fayolle, A. (2021). Impact of entrepreneurship education: A review of the past, overview of the present, and a glimpse of future trends. In C. H. Matthews & E. W. Liguori (Eds.) Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy-2021, (pp. 170–193) Edward Elgar.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity–recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.000
Mansoori, Y., & Lackéus, M. (2020). Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking. Small Business Economics, 54, 791–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00153-w
Maroulis, S. (2016). Interpreting school choice treatment effects: Results and implications from computational experiments. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 19(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3002
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
McDowell, G. R. (2001). Land-grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century: Renegotiating or Abandoning a Social Contract. Iowa State University Press.
Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2018). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12228
Miller, K., Cunningham, J., & Lehmann, E. (2021). Extending the university mission and business model: Influences and implications. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5), 915–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1896799
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103
Morris, M. H., Santos, S. C., & Kuratko, D. F. (2021). The great divides in social entrepreneurship and where they lead us. Small Business Economics, 57, 1089–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00318-y
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286
Nelson, A. J., & Monsen, E. (2014). Teaching technology commercialization: Introduction to the special section. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 774–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9341-3
Nicotra, M., Del Giudice, M., & Romano, M. (2021). Fulfilling university third mission: Towards an ecosystemic strategy of entrepreneurship education. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5), 1000–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1896806
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers 1, John Wiley & Sons.
Pache, A. C., & Chowdhury, I. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0019
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
Perkmann, M., Salandra, R., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., & Hughes, A. (2021). Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011–2019. Research Policy, 50(1), 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104114
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Suny Press.
Rasmussen, E. A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.012
Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Publishing. https://www.tolobranca.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Global-Overview-Lean-Startup-book-Eric-Ries.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2023.
Saldaña, J. (2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., Martinaitis, Ž, & Leitner, K. H. (2017). An intellectual capital framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.013
Segal, E. (2018). Social empathy: The art of understanding others. Columbia University Press.
Semcow, K., & Morrison, J. K. (2018). Lean startup for social impact: Refining the National Science Foundation’s Innovation Corps model to spur social science innovation. Social Enterprise Journal., 14(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-02-2018-0013
Shepherd, D. A., & Gruber, M. (2021). The lean startup framework: Closing the academic–practitioner divide. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 967–998. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719899415
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26, 582–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12116
Talmage, C. A., & Gassert, T. A. (2021). Enhancing social entrepreneurship education with dark side theory to frame social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 5(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274211022282
Tempest, S., & Starkey, K. (2004). The effects of liminality on individual and organizational learning. Organization Studies, 25(4), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604040674
Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. (2010). The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.015
Williams Middleton, K. (2013). Becoming entrepreneurial: Gaining legitimacy in the nascent phase. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 19(4), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2012-0049
Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9558-z
Zhang, F., & Maroulis, S. (2021). Experience is not enough: A dynamic explanation of the limited adaptation to extreme weather events in public organizations. Global Environmental Change, 70, 102358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102358
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editors of this special issue along with two anonymous reviewers for their excellent suggestions that helped improve the quality of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Borman, B., Dalal, M., Hayter, C.S. et al. A transversal reconceptualization of entrepreneurship education: applying insights from the lean social launch framework to the entrepreneurial university. Small Bus Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00859-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00859-y
Keywords
- Entrepreneurship education
- Entrepreneurial university
- Social entrepreneurship
- Lean startup
- I-Corps
- Academic entrepreneurship