Research suggests that inquiry into the field of entrepreneurship education is in a growth stage, yet the literature continues to struggle to overcome fragmentation, isolation, and a lack of focus and coherence (Gabrielsson, Hägg, Landström, & Politis, in press). Additionally, Pittaway, Huxtable-Thomas, and Hannon (2018) note that while there has been great progress in the past thirty years, there continues to be a divide between entrepreneurial learning research and how we teach in the classroom. Indeed, the entrepreneurship education research canon provides scant evidence linking what we do in the classroom to real world, practical entrepreneurship outcomes. In short, entrepreneurship education has outpaced the academy's understanding of what should be taught, how it should be taught, what the outcomes should be, and how entrepreneurship education should be assessed (Morris & Liguori 2016).This pedagogical gap comes at a time when in many countries higher education in general, and business school in particular, are being disrupted (Mintz 2020) as stakeholders of all forms (students, parents, employers, accrediting bodies, etc.) are looking for clarity, transparency, and stronger learning outcomes. Entrepreneurship education has not been spared from this disruption as what we know about entrepreneurship in general is far ahead of what we know about how to teach it (Morris & Liguori 2016).
Questions still abound around the practicality of the intentions and behaviors we instill in our students. For instance, there continues to be little research that bridges the transition from entrepreneurial intention to behavior and the action that results in nascent or true start-up activities (Nabi et al. 2015). We also seem to have an overemphasis on the students of entrepreneurship while neglecting the role of the educator in entrepreneurship education (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Perhaps most critically, as a field we are still unclear about the foundational concepts we claim to teach. For example, experts tell us that entrepreneurship education needs to include developing the ''skill set'' and ''mindset'' to engage in various entrepreneurial contexts, although these same experts are unclear exactly what this skill set or mindset is (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Given that we as field cannot agree on the definition of, or provide empirical evidence for, these crucial constructs and issues, it comes as no surprise that there is a lack of clarity on how we teach, and little consensus what students should be learning.
All of this opens numerous avenues for research and engagement centered on practical questions for both entrepreneurship education researchers and entrepreneurship educators. For instance, are there discernible and important diﬀerences in learning outcomes depending upon whether one teaches by doing or by simulating? Will students better learn and achieve more tangible entrepreneurial goals if teaching is student-centered as opposed to educator-centered? What role should co-curricular activities play in entrepreneurship education and how embedded within the curriculum should they be? How important is the student's confidence in their ability to fulfill the role of innovator or entrepreneur and how can this best be encouraged in the classroom? Overall, as entrepreneurship education becomes more applied, more experiential, and more student-focused, what does this mean for how we train faculty and design educational content?
Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth provides an annual examination of the current research, theoretical, and methodological efforts in the field of entrepreneurship, and its related disciplines. Volume 23 of AEFEG will focus on expanding our knowledge about entrepreneurship education research. Both theoretical and empirical manuscripts that consider important aspects of entrepreneurship education will be considered. We also encourage practice-based research and manuscripts that tie concepts to cutting-edge pedagogical approaches. Some broad questions of interest are noted in the preceding paragraph. Additionally, a representative, but by no means exhaustive, listing of relevant questions include:
Again this is only a partial list of potential issues to be examined. All rigorous studies that examine any current topic of interest within the entrepreneurship education canon will be considered. Potential authors are encouraged to reach out to any of the editors with questions regarding their work.
The papers in Advances reflect many state-of-the-art topics and approaches, and are written by leading researchers in the field, making each volume an important source of information for virtually all entrepreneurship researchers. One of the distinctive competencies of research volumes such as Advances is that the chapters can be published without page restrictions allowing for greater detail in the background, development, and implementation of ideas than is possible in journal articles. This provides authors with the opportunity to fully express their key ideas, provide much more complete support, and include relevant multi-page appendices. In effect, the Advances series provides authors the opportunity to publish an "article of record" of their major theoretical or empirical ideas, and see it disseminated to a wide audience. We hope you will identify a contribution to submit for consideration.
Today, the series is in the libraries of virtually all of the schools with active Ph.D. programs in entrepreneurship, as well as the majority of AACSB accredited schools with MBA concentrations in entrepreneurship and related fields.We welcome the opportunity to discuss paper ideas with interested researchers. Please contact the editors: Andrew Corbett, email@example.com, Lou Marino, firstname.lastname@example.org, or Gry Alsos, email@example.com
Papers should be submitted to Lou Marino and Andrew Corbett (firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com) no later than August 31, 2021.
Gabrielsson, J., Hägg, G., Landström, H., and Politis, D. (in press) Connecting the past with the
present: the development of research on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education. Education + Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2019-0265
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.N. & Corbett, A.C. 2018. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy, 1(1):8-41.
Pittaway, L. Huxtable-Thomas, L., and Hannon, P. (2018) Learning and educational programs for entrepreneurs, in R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, and J. Heinonen (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, p, 471-490, London: Sage.
Mintz, S. (2020) The disruptions higher education needs. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved October 24, 2020. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/disruptions-higher-education-needs
Morris, M. H., & Liguori, E. (2016). Preface: Teaching reason and the unreasonable, in M. H. Morris & E. Ligouri (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy (pp. xiv–xxii). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Connect to the Division