1st International Conference

Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections:

Implications, Opportunities and Challenges

March 7 and 8, 2019, Roanne, France

Call for papers

Since Harvard's first entrepreneurship course in 1947 and the rise of entrepreneurship education (EE) in the 70s (Katz 2003, Kuratko 2005), the pace of development of these training and support curricula accelerated considerably over the last 2 decades, under the pressure of many countries’ policy makers (Fayolle, Verzat and Wapshott, 2016). Seeing entrepreneurship as a societal cause, as an engine of growth,and as  innovation and employment levers (European Commission, 2013), actors and decision-makers  have seized this collective awareness and have relied heavily on its development. In order to do that, they have broaded its definition to the ability to turn ideas into actions and to solve problems in a way that creates value for oneself and for others (Blenker et al., 2012). Three major players act in the EE societal dynamics: policy makers as guide and support, Schools and Universities developing programs and ensuring the quality of learning, and entrepreneurs, as representatives of the business world developing new knowledge, new tools and new behaviors to cope with an increasingly fast and turbulent environment. However, these three actors often seem distant and only focused on their own dynamics:
 
-         For policy makers, the objectives are to raise student awareness and entrepreneurship learning through practice, closer to the real world, in order to develop essential skills such as creativity or teamwork (European Commission, 2013). Partly financing the EA and looking for evaluations and returns on investment (Eynon, 2013), the public authorities are now asking for justification of the merits of the steps taken.
 
-        For Schools and Universities, the development of initiatives and programs has been considerable but it is often carried out in the urgency and the competition (Paul, 2002) and it  rises to scientific works (Kuratko, 2005). Action has moved much faster than theory, i.e.  the pedagogy and research needed to justify and explain it (Rideout and Gray, 2013). EE is now present all around the world and on all levels of the institutional and disciplinary frameworks (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.

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 March the 1st 2019

Special issue publication Summer 2019


Download the call:

Entrepreneurship Education, rethinking connections.pdf