For increasingly digital EE to benefit from reflection, teachers will need to first assess their own assumptions and purposes for using it. As a result, they should set appropriate learning outcomes which recognise the value of reflection as a practice that enhances resilience and 'decisions in entrepreneurship'. This enables the recognition of learning, rather than a form of writing which enables an assessment of competence.

### References

level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611442

Louisa Huxtable-Thomas is an Associate Professor, specialising in entrepreneurship and leadership, at the School of Management, Swansea University. She divides her time between entrepreneurship education and executive education for post-experience learners from the private and public sector.

Taiga Brahm has been a Professor for economic education at the University of Tuebingen, Germany, since October 2016. Her current research interests include entrepreneurship education, students' transition to and within higher education, digitalisation of teaching and learning as well as economic (teacher) education.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Transformative Action and the Structure of Reflexivity: Aspects of Enterprise Teaching and Quality Pedagogy

Kingsley Obi Omeihe and Ibiyemi Omeihe

Abstract This chapter suggests that the key to quality entrepreneurship education lies in reflective action learning. In elaborating this perspective, this study draws on the reflective experiences of third-year entrepreneurship students and educators in providing interpretations of the learning and teaching process. The concept of transformative reflexivity, which presupposes an introspection of entrepreneurship teaching and learning methods located within social contexts, is introduced. At the centre, we contend that entrepreneurship education demands an approach to developing student and educator competence, with a rich emphasis on reflexive practice. This we believe creates a unique climate for quality experiential experience. Our main results facilitate a rich understanding of the positive effects of enabling greater student ownership of the learning process. The theoretical import of the study is in part a plea to solidify and interpret, in the face of scholarly differences, a unified stance that challenges and extends existing entrepreneurship knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions.

Keywords Entrepreneurship education · Teaching · Transformative reflexivity · Learning

### 1 Introduction

To date, the view that entrepreneurship education should be based on experiential approaches continues to gain grounds. While there have been few attempts to examine the extent to which entrepreneurship education improves the quality of

K. O. Omeihe (✉)

© The Author(s) 2023 J. H. Block et al. (eds.), Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training, FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28559-2\_21

Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Omeihe University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK

start-ups (Galloway & Brown, 2002; Wilson et al., 2009; Fayolle & Gailly, 2015), many of the questions which require propounding remain to be answered. In fact, tensions between the effectiveness of various entrepreneurship programmes and teaching delivery are perhaps the most widely posed concerns of the field (Gibbs, 2005; Kuratko, 2005). The problem of delivery, for example, invariably involves articulating new understandings, meanings and knowledge in a way that is co-generated from the interactions between faculty and students. The resulting effect, if effectively applied, influences graduate entrepreneurial proficiency. This remains critical as standard approaches to delivering entrepreneurship should be devoted to the identification of opportunities and the activity of setting up a business (Crammond et al., 2018; Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019).

Nonetheless, the practice of effectively teaching entrepreneurship is by no means an easy feat. While most entrepreneurship course have been criticised for their reliance on business plans (Mason & Arshed, 2013) and their detachment from the start-up process (Honig, 2004; Dutta et al., 2011), others contend that the overreliance on theoretical underpinnings imported from other disciplines may have diminished the distinctiveness of entrepreneurship as a subject (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Solomon, 2008). To a large extent, an effective delivery requires an emphasis on scholarly considerations, such as entrepreneurial intent, opportunity recognition, start-up models and the economic importance of entrepreneurship. These are likely to stimulate entrepreneurship across students.

One of the virtues of putting right such concerns is making explicit the standards needed for quality entrepreneurship education. We are more concerned with the aspect that embraces experiential learning. Following Hasse and Lautenschlager and Lange et al., we recognise that the effectiveness of entrepreneurial learning lies in an experiential delivery approach (Haase & Lautenschläger, 2011; Lange et al., 2007). This remains critical as existing programmes have failed to develop the skill and entrepreneurial competencies needed in the fast-changing global market. Indeed, an approach in the right movement would be committed to addressing teaching effectiveness and delivery standards.

In this light, the purpose of this study is to present and discuss the findings from an experiential learning assignment towards evaluating the course effectiveness, as well as the approaches influencing teaching delivery. In seeking to identify best practice for teaching entrepreneurship education, the analysis of our findings is focused around one sub-question:

### RQ1 How do learners and educators perceive best practice in the delivery of entrepreneurship education?

Compared to previous studies that have explored enterprise education as pedagogy (Jones & Iredale, 2010; Murray et al., 2018), our study recognises the relative paucity of research that have explored the role of experiential learning through the lens of both the learner and educator. Our findings reveal the essence of experiential approach to entrepreneurship education and, more interestingly, how it facilitates learning through reflective action.

Our main theoretical contribution confirms, first, that the logics of transformative reflexivity, which necessitates an understanding of behaviour located within social contexts, address the strengths and the equally active nature of making sense of reality. Secondly, we suggest that knowledge should ideally be grounded on a selfintrospection, whereby uncertainties are suspended towards maintaining a positive expectation. From a methodological perspective, our study is useful in its application of a qualitative methodology, as it seeks to underscore the focus on critical issues by allowing a rich interpretation of our findings. This paves the way for an analysis of how learning experience is created and given meaning. We contend that the educator and learner's objectives can be best explained in terms of subject matter mastery and attainment of specific competencies (Mezirow, 1997). Hence, achieving these goals requires the critical reflection of one's own assumptions, while engaging effectively in introspection to validate beliefs through the experiences of others.

The remainder of this chapter describes transformative reflexivity and its embedded ties to experiential learning. We describe our findings and elaborate a framework that draws on students' reflections towards extending knowledge. Following an inductive approach, our method is explained before presenting our framework.

# 2 Logics of Transformative Reflexivity for Entrepreneurship Education

The delivery of effective entrepreneurship education demands creating an approach that encompasses student reflections. Following Lay and Mcguire (Lay & McGuire, 2010), we believe that by introducing a reflexive standpoint in the way students learn, educators can devise pedagogical strategies that enable development of the critical skills needed to practice effectively. This, we recognise, has a strong impact on student learning.

So what is reflexivity exactly? Reflexivity involves probing thought processes, prejudices, assumptions and habitual actions, towards understanding one's complex roles in relation to others (Bolton, 2009). It differs from reflection which is an action of fixing one's thoughts on a particular subject. In reflection, one attempts to identify links from one experience to another. However, reflexivity suggests that one can locate oneself and appreciate how one's own self influences their actions. While both reflection and reflexivity are important for responsibility teaching practice, the idea of reflexivity is more complex as it facilitates the identification and modification of experiences towards shaping an enhanced action.

In a review of reflexive models, (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019) provide an apt definition by suggesting that reflection is a process that enables a learner to embed understanding sourced through one's experience to accelerate choices as well as enhance one's effectiveness. Shaw offers the following suggestion: 'Reflexivity is a complex concept to understand and to teach'. She goes on to emphasise that reflexivity is about 'standing back and reflecting on experience...the ability to initiate thoughts and action which involve imaginations, solutions for change' (Shaw, 2013).

Despite its potentials for positive outcomes, the concept of reflexivity has often been misunderstood (Okely & Callaway, 1992; England, 1994). The challenge stems from the absence of effective strategies designed to guide students in achieving learning outcomes. And as such, it becomes a difficult concept to apply in practice (Ash & Clayton, 2004). Concerned with the desire to connect student experiences to learning and a need to demonstrate a good application of their knowledge plus cognitive development, (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019) introduced a new approach to reflexivity which posited the logics of transformation as defining the structure and meaning of reflexivity.

The focus of reflection was no longer devoted to students alone, rather it embraces the reflections of educators. For them, the logics of transformative reflexivity induce introspection on the path of the learner and educator by allowing a scrutiny of entrepreneurial learning and teaching approaches. Put succinctly, the logics of transformative reflexivity is an overall inclusive process which provides insights into quality teaching process (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019). Embodied in entrepreneurship practice, its appeal lies in integrating teaching and student learning in a reinforcing manner. The emphasis is on the methods of entrepreneurial learning which probes the inner texture of adopted teaching practices.

According to their definition (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019), the logics of transformative reflexivity provide a link between an enterprising content delivery and the constructed reflexive ability to stimulate student knowledge. It contends that entrepreneurship education for students needs to be experiential. This approach to reflexivity integrates the educators' introspections and that of the students as two necessary and complementary elements of transformative reflexivity.

While definitions of reflective learning vary in their emphasis, they all presuppose cognitive development for students to imagine in different ways, while developing alternative interpretations of their learning experiences. With transformative reflexivity, it requires going beyond student reflections and experiential learning, to embracing the introspection of the educators and the application of such reflections to practice. So located, together they regularise behaviour and provide an opportunity to assess the efficacy of entrepreneurship education.

# 3 Meta-theory of Logics of Transformative Reflexivity

The logics of transformative approach incorporate two underpinning meta-theories of how entrepreneurship education through introspection and experiential learning facilitates a richer application and understanding of the subject matter. Here, we articulate two guiding aspects that in our perspicacity underpin the meta-theories. This may provide well founded and valid insights for future theoretical refinement. We posit that transformative reflexivity should manifest at two different levels, that of the educator and the learner. These mutually reinforcing levels establish the foundations for reflective activity, thereby enhancing the quality of teaching entrepreneurship and student learning.

### 3.1 Transformative Reflexivity at the Educator Level

Perhaps an important aspect of the transformative reflexivity approach is that the educator's role and competence are embedded within their introspection. Teaching delivery is an outcome of the reflexive standpoint in their thinking process. This is useful in enhancing their ability to devise pedagogical strategies that facilitate critical thinking on the part of the students. While most educators appear to rely on lectures and workshops to navigate complexities surrounding entrepreneurship courses, the effectiveness of delivery is determined by their ability to provide students with experiences that facilitate the integration of real-world experiences to their teaching content (Lay & McGuire, 2010; Zlotnik, 2003).

At this level of analysis, the transformative reflexive aspect exists on the part of the educator who provides the impetus for knowledge. A major characteristic of award-winning entrepreneurship educators lies in their desire to be reflexive after collecting feedback on their teaching approaches (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019; Dunkin & Precians, 1992; Biggs & Tang, 2011). As the term reflexivity goes, it is a mirror through which one can make introspections and satisfactory outcomes. In relating this to effective entrepreneurship education delivery, the goal is to ensure that the perspective of the educator influences what is known and how it is known (Fook, 2002). This serves to determine the quality of graduate start-ups, as well as the intellectual attitudes of student entrepreneurs in the longer term (Galloway & Brown, 2002).

For transformative reflexivity, a series of articulated intellectual standard questions are posed at critical teaching periods to understand student learning and to know when knowledge has been imparted. It is expected that this will assist the educator in developing the skills, knowledge and ability that will foster the development of their intellectual capabilities.

Examples of the articulated standard questions which an educator may pose to define the breadth and depth of behind their teaching approach are as follows: 'What was good or bad about my teaching?' 'Was I able to convey the complexities about entrepreneurship to the students?' 'What could I have done better in stimulating entrepreneurship among the students?' 'How can I ensure that learning outcomes have been achieved?' 'Have I been able to transfer the knowledge and skills needed to operate a new business venture?'

For us, these series of reflexive questions present guiding blocks that provide the basis for improving entrepreneurship teaching delivery. It is because educators are required to challenge existing assumptions and to possess the ability to analyse power relationships in the classroom (Brookfield, 1995). This presupposes that the reflexive introspection demands that an educator's delivery must be aligned to achieve best learning outcomes. Put succinctly, an educator-level transformative reflexivity provides a self-critical introspection of the teacher's strategic approach which induces new insights for improvement.

### 3.2 Transformative Reflexivity at the Learner's Level

A key assumption of the logics of transformative reflexivity is that entrepreneurial learning must be located in a way that stimulates entrepreneurship among learners. In broad terms, the key approach is centred on the need to enhance the learners' general attitude to entrepreneurship, as well as promoting entrepreneurship as a useful career prospect for students (Kolvereid & Moen, 1997). In explaining the learner-level transformative reflexivity, (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019) argue that structures must be put in place to guide the way students reflect. This involves helping students connect their experiences by assessing the quality of learning. Thus, the underlying assumption is not on the quantity of reflective exercises; instead the focus is on how reflexivity challenges student's perspective of entrepreneurship, thereby providing richer explanations of their experiential learning.

Based on the work of Ash and Clayton, we contend that at the learner level, students should be guided in their reflexive process to exploring the interplay between theory and practice (Ash & Clayton, 2004). While we recognise that students vary not just in the study skills but in their approach to learning and particularly in the extent to which they reproduce material, the extent to which educators exert their guidance on the student's reflections is by amplifying the essence of learning objectives. As students identify with objectives, they effectively align their experiences in their journals. Through this, they can confidently identify the essence of varying learning entrepreneurial exercises.

In all of this and for transformative reflexivity to take place, emphasis must be placed on the learner's active reflection. Ensuring that students can actively think about what they are trying to do when it is applied is the cornerstone to student development (Gibbs, 2005). Examples of the articulated standard questions which educators can use in guiding student's transformative reflexive process are as follows: 'What did you learn?' 'How did you feel about it?' 'What do the objectives mean and why are they important? 'How is this useful is to your entrepreneurial development?' 'How does this contribute to your knowledge of start-up process?' 'How can you improve your chances of meeting your career goals?' Although similar to Kolb's experiential learning cycle and the articulated learning of Ash and Clayton (Kolb & Kolb, 1984; Ash & Clayton, 2004), these six questions are designed to address the issues of entrepreneurial intent and, therefore, are likely to influence graduate entrepreneurship. In essence, we contend that it is through the engagement of students' reflexive process and the outcome of their learning that real entrepreneurial progress is achieved.

### 4 Methods

### 4.1 Data

Because students and educators are active participants in the reflexive process, they provide a particularly good context in which to explore transformative reflexivity. We relied on data from an enterprise creation third-year cohort enrolled on the BA business programme at the University of the West of Scotland and a small sample of enterprise educators. Our first data source grew out of an analysis of a first semester assignment which had the keeping of a journal as a key component. Students were required to critically consider their personal development needs and skills. An integral part of the learning process was for them to be reflexive in their actions, as the assessment element requires each student to write about their own personal development. The journals had a 3,000-word requirement.

Our data collection strategy evolved matching our theoretical understanding (Glaser & Straus, 1967). Moving across the submitted assignments, we located 16 submissions that fit our emerging definition of transformative reflexivity and proceeded to dedicate special attention to them. As our understanding of transformative reflexivity grew, we decided to increase our knowledge of learners who were not engaged in the reflexive process, and we included for a deeper study 2 submissions to our existing 16 samples.

Our second source of data collection consists of case studies initiated between 2019 and 2021 to investigate the contemporary phenomenon which exists between learners and educators. In explicating this, our choice of using a qualitative case study approach was to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life narratives using multiple sources of evidence pertaining to reflexive processes of learners and educators.

In essence the case study was used to complement the first data study. This enabled a much deeper understanding of how transformative reflexivity looks from the perspective of educators and learners being studied. Therefore, the cases allowed a range of similarities and contrasts and thereby added confidence to the findings of the study (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2014, p. 45).

The comparison of different cases provided for clearer conclusions in explaining the concept of transformative reflexivity. The point being that it is expedient to uncover how educators also make sense of their reflexive practice from a particular vantage point.

We began by approaching enterprise educators, and we relied on a purposive sampling, beginning with educators who had taught on the course and proceeded to invite those who had taught on other venture creation courses. The choice of adopting a purposive sampling fits perfectly within the frame of this study, as the logic behind our strategy for selecting cases was dependent on the needs of our emerging theory (Marshall & Rossman, 2014). Much of what we learned came from a comparison of findings from both data sources. For our interviews, the conversations were not recorded. So, our quotes in this study are a product of written notes

Table 1 Characteristics of educators

captured during the interviews. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the educators and Table 2 an overview of the characteristics of leaners.

### 4.2 Analysis and Data Procedure

In examining learners and educator's experiences about transformative reflexivity, we made effort to adopt the best approaches for data analysis. We structured our analysis according to established procedures for thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Our analysis was done at two levels. First, we focused on identifying reflexive descriptions from the students' reflective diaries. We then examined the case studies of educators comparatively and coded the responses based on a series of simple typologies that emerged (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Baker & Nelson, 2005). An important aspect of the coding process involved the domains where the educators engaged in the reflexive process, supported by the coding from the students' journals. Part of this process involved a within-case and cross-case synthesis of the evidence, as quotes were used to build evidence for the readership.

Following an iterative process, we were able to refine the themes before proceeding to undertake a second-order audit. We then compared the overall reflexive experience towards developing an overall reflexive narrative. This was useful in ensuring that the data collected was indicative of the true responses of the participants. The analysis focused more on the similarities rather than the differences across our findings. To a broader extent, this provided an opportunity for rich and valid data to support this study.

In presenting our results, we have relied on quotes from the interviews and selected examples from the journals to describe our findings. For our selected examples, we have chosen alphabets to introduce the educators involved and relied on indexed numbers for the learners.

### 5 Findings

Our qualitative data indicate that the standard reflexive questions were useful in capturing outcomes and opportunities relevant for the application of entrepreneurial knowledge. The structured questioning process provided an opportunity for both learners and educator to achieve a rich level of critical reflexivity (Ash & Clayton, 2004).

### 5.1 Entrepreneurial Awareness

From our empirical findings, there is evidence from the journals that the educators' approach to teaching provided a rich sense of entrepreneurial awareness. We tried to evaluate the efficacy of this observation and identified this was a product of the educators' ability to be reflexive on two of the standard questions: 'was I able to convey the complexities about entrepreneurship to the students?' and 'what could I have done better in stimulating entrepreneurship among the students?'. Some of the below excerpts captured in the student's journal are presented below:

Due to this course, I now have an overview of what it is to create a business. It has motivated me to create my own business. Now I know the work that is behind every business creation (Learner One)

This module was really useful for me. Indeed, I may be creating my own business sooner than expected and having courses on it will help me (Learner Two)

I have been able to develop new skills and attributes thanks to this module. I feel I am now able to run my own business. It was a concrete module that permits us to familiarise with the business world (Learner Three)

Indeed, it seems relevant that a fundamental element of transformative reflexivity is the educator's need to recognise their individual teaching approach as a basis for the development of entrepreneurial teaching and learning strategy. Table 3 captures a range of selected feedback to buttress our findings.

Table 3 Illustrative reflective quotes demonstrating entrepreneurial awareness achieved from the course

### 5.2 Learning Outcomes

One of the principal arguments advanced in this study is the achievement of entrepreneurial learning outcomes. The objective of learning outcomes across entrepreneurial courses is broadly the same: which is to encourage students to be more entrepreneurial. A key aspect of the transformative reflexivity process is a simple question that captures how an educator's understanding of the learning outcomes is captured in the reflective process: 'how can I ensure that learning outcomes have been achieved?'. This in turn is used as a guide to improving new teaching experiences. The following excerpts captures selected responses from the educators:

In my teaching, I am always conscious of what student should know, so I that don't deviate in my explanation. This includes the skills and knowledge which should be acquired at the end of the class, course, and assessment. This is useful in ensuring that students understand why knowledge and skill is useful to their entrepreneurial capacity. (Case E)

I am careful about the topics to teach so that I can ensure an understanding that provides entrepreneurial coverage. Relevant topics are prioritised to ensure student understanding. (Case C)

Table 4 portrays more findings from the educators' and learners' interpretations of learning outcomes. Our method for summarising the relationship between our qualitative evidence builds on Sutton and Callahan (Omeihe, 2019) cross-site analysis developed by Miles and Hubermann (1994) for identifying similarities among data. The cross-site display in Table 4 was constructed to indicate evidence from their reflexive response. Here we have gone ahead to capture a combination of

evidence that projects a good fit in teaching and learning approaches. This evidence is elaborated below.

### 5.3 Personal Development

Becoming an entrepreneur requires a time of rapid development. Good entrepreneurship courses have an orientation to support the development of students. This is supported by a careful creation of peer learning communities, mentoring and a good teaching delivery. Evidence from the students' reflections indicated that the course was useful to their personal development. All the 16 students including the two students who had not engaged fully in the process reported that they had enhanced their personal development. Some of the key entrepreneurial development themes that emerged were confidence, application of new knowledge, creative and innovative skills and entrepreneurial intent and capacity. For the educators, a majority identified that students were always interested in challenges and had to be stimulated. Hence, students were recognised as fully engaged in the course delivery only if there is a vehicle for change and personal development. Table 5 provides an overview of illustrative quotes for personal development.

Table 5 Illustrative quotes for personal development

### 5.4 Educators' Perspective

From our empirical findings, there is evidence that entrepreneurship education is enhanced by a transformative reflexive process through which educators can critically analyse their approaches. In this vein, a reflect-evaluate-restrategise approach is undertaken to improve teaching and student engagement. This involves changing key aspects of teaching styles in a systematic way by drawing from evidence available to the teacher. A typical excerpt is provided by one of the respondents:

Teaching for me is a passion, however students seem not to enjoy my teaching. I tend to notice this through their levels of engagement, and this is not satisfying. I always go back home and try to be better the next day. I try to engage them more and try to seek their attention. It works most times for me, but I know I need more application (Case E)

The above evidence involves a self-induced reflexivity which enables the teacher to critically review aspects of one's teaching. This ensures that such action supports the adjustment of teaching approaches through self-monitoring. The respondent refers to a reflexive cycle which aims at improving teaching approaches. Although much can be achieved through reflexivity, the empirical findings further point to the need for suitable learning activities which will shape the entrepreneurial mindset of the students.

When asked about the suitability of the intended learning outcomes, one of the respondents provided the below excerpt:

It is always important to go back to the drawing board. My approach is to ensure that I achieve the learning outcomes through my teaching approach. This includes providing unique learning activities to stimulate student development. (Case C)

Interestingly, the transformative reflexive process enhances the pedagogical message transmitted to the student. Here the educator ensures that tasks and activities are designed to support the development of student entrepreneurship. Crucially and within the students' journals, we found that a major barrier to entrepreneurship teaching was a proficiency in this area. One of the respondents implied that proficiency was not only related to theory but also with the ability to have educators who have run their own businesses.

Quality entrepreneurship education was identified as ensuring student engagement, providing mentorship and stimulating the cognitive process of the students. Teaching delivery was essential, but more importantly, there is a need to stimulate class tasks and assessments. This should be based on real-life projects and evaluated by real entrepreneurs.

A typical excerpt indicated the role of group assessments and projects:

To bring the best from students with regards to entrepreneurship, demands good assessments and tasks. This should be based on real life projects and must be demanding in capturing key concepts of the business formation. Traditional individual class work and assessments are not enough. (Case D)

The above excerpt indicates the need for relevant assessments and class activities that provide support for improvement. Through this approach, students are tasked with taking ownership and control of their learning. Here, the obstacles faced while learning are confirmed as the educator is expected to keep track of teaching shortcomings with strategies for improvement.

# 6 Logics of Transformative Reflexivity Model

Based on the foregoing, our five-stage model (Figs. 1 and 2) existing at both levels (educator and learner) demonstrates how entrepreneurship teaching and learning are translated into reflections to serve as a guide for enhancing new experiences. As the model's title indicates, the logics of transformative reflexivity affirm the essence of reflective introspections as a basis for new entrepreneurship teaching and learning action and an evaluation of the consequences.

### 7 Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter has examined the experiences of educators and students as it relates to the structure of reflexivity. It is precisely the feature of transformative action that would explain how quality teaching can be imparted. While admitting its relevance,

Fig. 1 Educator-level transformative reflexivity

Fig. 2 Learner-level transformative reflexivity

the chapter has contended that effective entrepreneurship education cannot fully stand out without an introspection of teaching and learning approaches.

In addressing entrepreneurship teaching approaches (research question one), the educators' excerpts support an enacted transformative introspective approach to teaching and learning. As a matter of fact, the argument to be made in maximising opportunities indicates that the educator's reflections should be shaped around a series of standardised questions that include firm commitments to enhancing teaching delivery.

Evidence seems to suggest that for this is to be possible, an appropriate set of learning activities should be in place to shape students' entrepreneurial mindset. Indeed, evidence across the responses embraces the need for personal development and mentorship.

It must be pointed out that our findings were not dedicated to educators alone but learners inclusive. As is evident, one fact that needs to be given recognition is that intervention aimed at improving student learning is required. For example, students need to be guided along a set of structured reflexive process to create opportunities for learning enhancements. As a result, we have argued that capturing learning experiences supports the entrepreneurial process (Crammond et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2018), such that it emboldens students to take control of their learning. Indeed, the challenges on the part of the educator demand the need to recognise their teaching shortcomings, in the view of undertaking strategic improvements.

From a broader perspective, the potential usefulness of quantitative data would have limited the findings derived in this study. We recognise that using quantitative methods may not provide a rich understanding of the issues we seek to uncover. Unlike qualitative approaches that bring us closer to the research phenomenon, quantitative approaches are known to provide casual explanations and numerical measurements (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Omeihe, 2019). Thus, a qualitative study was considered applicable as it provided a rich understanding of transformative reflexivity in entrepreneurship education.

Its apparent that a potential weakness of our data may have to do with the sample size. It remains the case that plausible future studies could consider crossinstitutional comparisons which include leaders of higher education.

To say that our contribution provides insights into approaches for enhancing quality entrepreneurial teaching and learning is not enough. We contend that entrepreneurship education demands creating a unique climate which encompasses holistic educators' and learners' reflexive practices. We believe this has a strong impact on entrepreneurship education.

In short, while some may see limitations to entrepreneurial learning from a student perspective, we argue that success expectation lies at the doorstep of the curriculum/programme design and approach. This presupposes an application of a set of introspections which educators must adhere to.

Ultimately, universities should seek to address the associated interventions needed to create an entrepreneurial culture. As such, the appeal of this study lies in the opportunity to probe the inner texture of adopted teaching and learning practices. Our chapter points that effective entrepreneurship education should incorporate transformative reflexivity for both educators and learners by allowing a scrutiny of their teaching and learning process.

### References

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Solomon, G. (2008) Entrepreneurship education in the United States.

Wilson, K. E., et al. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. In World Economic Forum: A Report of the Global Education Initiative.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publication.

Zlotnik, J. L. (2003). The use of title IV-E training funds for social work education: An historical perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1–2), 5–20.

Kingsley Obi Omeihe is an Associate Professor of Marketing and Entrepreneurship at the University of the West of Scotland. He holds the position of Chair and Senior Fellow at Marcel Advisory. His research interests include qualitative research methods and comparative curriculum issues in entrepreneurship education.

Ibiyemi Omeihe is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of the West of Scotland. Her research brings a leadership informed perspective to a variety of topics, including social problems, small business and enterprise education. She is currently researching, using phenomenological analysis, the meanings and consequences of authentic leadership.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# The Impact Circle: A New Design-Based Method for Developing Business Opportunities with Sustainable Impact

Marc Karahan and Caro Noemi Stoeckermann

Abstract In sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE), participants frequently take on the role of would-be entrepreneurs and develop business ideas that contribute to sustainable development. Due to the complexity of entrepreneurial tasks, educators require adequate tools and methods that facilitate the participants' learning. However, methods for sustainable entrepreneurship are generally scarce, and most existing approaches are either ill-suited for the educational context or encourage users to add new sustainability features to business ideas rather than challenging underlying value creation mechanisms. Hence, a new approach is needed to emphasize sustainability at the center of business model innovation while being suitable for SEE. Based on Koestler's concept of bisociation, which implies joining seemingly unrelated or conflicting information from different domains, we developed a new method for discovering sustainable business ideas—the Impact Circle. The 2-year development process comprised 8 workshops with 164 participants and multiple scientific methods. We contribute to research and practice by outlining the iterative development process and describing the Impact Circle's application. Furthermore, we provide novel insights into bisociation as a phenomenon in entrepreneurial cognition and creativity.

Keywords Sustainable entrepreneurship · Education · Method · Teaching

# 1 Introduction

In response to the sustainability crisis and driven by student demand, many higher education institutions have implemented sustainability elements into their teaching and training activities to educate participants as responsible future professionals and

Department for Economics and Management, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

C. N. Stoeckermann Centre for Entrepreneurship, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

© The Author(s) 2023

M. Karahan (✉)

J. H. Block et al. (eds.), Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training, FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28559-2\_22

change agents for sustainable development (Karahan et al., 2022; Lozano et al., 2013). Specifically, entrepreneurship education has seen a recent surge in social or sustainable entrepreneurship offerings. Sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE) provides participants with skills, knowledge, and attitudes to assess and exploit business opportunities concerning environmental and social needs (Sharma et al., 2020). Among the most popular SEE teaching approaches is experiential learning, in which participants are guided through the entrepreneurial journey, essentially placing them in the position of would-be entrepreneurs (Mindt & Rieckmann, 2017). Given the complexity of the tasks that (would-be) sustainable entrepreneurs need to perform, educators require adequate tools and methods to support the learning experience and to ensure knowledge uptake.

However, most of the current tools for sustainable entrepreneurship (for an overview, see (Hope, 2018)) are either ill-suited to the educational context or detrimental to its overall purpose. On the one hand, they tend to be inherently complex, and their application thus requires extensive guidance (Geissdoerfer, 2019), which is constrained by the limited time and personnel resources of SEE. On the other hand, even if current tools are accustomed to the SEE context, they often neglect a direct contribution to sustainable entrepreneurship competencies (Lans et al., 2014; Ploum et al., 2018). For instance, (Bocken et al., 2013; Geissdoerfer et al., 2016) suggested a comprehensive value mapping tool. By assessing the positive and negative impacts of venturing activities on diverse stakeholders, it enables users to generate novel ideas for mitigating or leveraging these effects and advancing the underlying business model. However, while the value mapping tool provides a systematic and convenient approach for sustainable business model (SBM) innovation, it neglects to foster sustainable thinking throughout the entire application. Notably, during the idea generation, the tool's current design nudges users to add new elements to the underlying business model instead of reflecting the value creation logic. Business sustainability, hence, becomes a mere "saddlebag or bolt-on" (Sharma & Hardt, 2014; Wyness & Jones, 2019). This additive bias is persistent among various SEE tools and sustainable entrepreneurship in general (Sharma et al., 2020). In this regard, (Dean & McMullen, 2007) criticizes "sustainability-orientation in the development of a new business model is not a matter of simply adding new sustainability components and questions to merely profit-oriented business model frameworks." To effectively facilitate sustainable entrepreneurship, SEE must overcome the dominant additive approach.

We address this gap by developing a new method that (1) enables entrepreneurs to assess the impacts of business models and (2) comprehensively supports the discovery of more integrated, sustainable business ideas, while (3) being suitable to the SEE context. Hence, we ask the following research question: How can we assist entrepreneurs in considering sustainability as an integrated concept in business model innovation? The resulting method, called the Impact Circle, was developed based on a 2-year iterative design process including multiple scientific methods, such as interviews, surveys, observations, and expert feedback. We continuously applied the Impact Circle in 8 workshops with 164 participants from various backgrounds.

# 2 Theoretical Foundations

# 2.1 SBM as a Theoretical Lens for Sustainable Entrepreneurial Impacts

SBM theory offers a valuable theoretical perspective for understanding entrepreneurial contributions to sustainable development. It dissects business impacts as multidirectional value creation logic for diverse stakeholders (Freudenreich et al., 2019). On the one hand, SBM theory describes what stakeholders are relevant in the sustainable entrepreneurship. These include financial stakeholders, customers, business partners, employees, and societal stakeholders (Freudenreich et al., 2019). In addition, (Bocken et al., 2014) emphasizes the role of the natural environment by suggesting them as a separate stakeholder category. On the other hand, SBM theory analyzes how those stakeholders relate to entrepreneurial activities. According to (Freudenreich et al., 2019), stakeholders and start-ups engage in reciprocal relationships, such as production and consumption of goods and services, supply and co-creation, and contribution to sustainable issues and appreciation of related activities. In conclusion, the SBM theoretical lens suggests that educators enable the discovery and design of sustainable business ideas by facilitating a broad stakeholder identification and an assessment of the relationship between entrepreneurial activities and stakeholder consequences.

# 2.2 Conflicting Stakeholder Interests as Sustainable Entrepreneurial Opportunities

Stakeholder theory amplifies the suggestions of SBM theory. Accordingly, it views business processes as "how customers, suppliers, employees, financiers [...], communities and managers interact and create value" (Edward Freeman, 2010). In capitalism, it is the entrepreneur's duty to manage and shape the relationships between stakeholders so that all win in the long run (Edward Freeman, 2010). This often proves challenging in reality. In sustainable entrepreneurship, founders frequently need to balance conflicting demands between stakeholders, e.g., building a new production facility versus protecting the local forest or improving data algorithms versus ensuring data protection (Freudenreich et al., 2019). It is the nature of entrepreneurship to respond to this dissonance with creative problemsolving rather than a trade-off mindset. To put it differently, if entrepreneurs "look for trade-offs among stakeholders, then they will create trade-offs, and they may never find the 'sweet spot' that signifies the joint interest of all key stakeholders" (Edward Freeman, 2010). Therefore, conflicting stakeholder interests may yet entail another entrepreneurial opportunity. Thus, educators may enrich stakeholder identification and relational assessment by leveraging the entrepreneur's creative problemsolving ability to develop novel solutions that address conflicting stakeholder demands.

# 2.3 Generating Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ideas through Bisociation

Creativity, defined as the production of novel and useful ideas, is a profound characteristic of entrepreneurs (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). According to (Weinberger et al., 2018), "the nature of entrepreneurs' jobs means that their business's success depends on the entrepreneur's capacity to generate creative ideas not merely occasionally, but on a daily basis." When exploring and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities, they engage in a continuous iterative process of idea generation, refinement, and redevelopment (Dimov, 2007). Entrepreneurs combine information from multiple unrelated domains to generate original ideas during this process. Particularly, the diversity of information is a strong moderator during idea generation (Gielnik et al., 2012). We argue that various stakeholder interests, as described above, constitute such diverse information. Compared to traditional entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurship not only involves industry or business information but extends to social and environmental considerations (Dean & McMullen, 2007). Idea generation thus includes highly heterogeneous information domains, making sustainable entrepreneurship a fertile ground for entrepreneurial creativity.

However, the exposure to diverse information, i.e., conflicting stakeholder interests, does not readily translate into sustainable business ideas. Therefore, it is necessary to position relevant information at the center of the entrepreneur's idea generation. We argue that if business ideas resolve conflicting stakeholder interests, they integrate diverse values and hence may be considered more sustainable. To identify such ideas in the SEE context, we draw on the concept of bisociation (Koestler, 1964), which has attracted some scholarly attention in entrepreneurship, creativity, and education research (Pettersen et al., 2019). Bisociation implies joining seemingly unrelated or conflicting information from different domains. It facilitates "the mixture of concepts from two contexts or categories of objects that are unconnected by the normal processes of the mind" (Pettersen et al., 2019). As opposed to associative thinking, which is more common in everyday life decisions and arguably the additive approach in tools for sustainable entrepreneurship, in bisociation, "individuals combine information to identify an opportunity or to help shape competitive advantages" (Ireland et al., 2003). For instance, (Koestler, 1964) uses the invention of the printing press as a historic illustration for bisociation. The author described how Gutenberg combined observations on the coin punching process (domain A) and the application of steady pressure during the wine harvest (domain B) to invent the process of printing with movable types. Concluding, by applying the concept of bisociation to sustainable entrepreneurial tasks, we propose a positive contribution to identifying sustainable business opportunities.

# 2.4 The Need for a New Method

SEE practitioners are responsible for equipping (would-be) entrepreneurs with hands-on tools for developing sustainable business ideas (Pettersen et al., 2019). Albeit creative ideas require consecutive action to be considered entrepreneurial opportunities, they are nevertheless an integral part of the entrepreneurial journey and thus an essential element of SEE. Given the absence of adequate tools, educators need a method that facilitates entrepreneurial creativity for exploring novel valueintegrating solutions that meet conflicting stakeholder interests.

### 3 Methodology

Our research methodology was based on six stages displayed in Fig. 1 and comprised various qualitative and quantitative scientific methods. Its overall strategy and approach to results reporting were inspired by (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016).

Following our research question, in stage 1, we first defined the requirements for tools in the SEE context. We focused on three types of data, (1) recent scientific publications on SEE and SBM, (2) interviews with three SEE practitioners, and (3) our own experiences as lectures and designers for sustainable entrepreneurship formats. Subsequently, we analyzed to what extent existing tools fulfill the requirements. First, we performed a keyword-guided desktop research in scientific and public databases and manually reviewed the websites of relevant institutions to identify current tools for sustainable entrepreneurship. Second, the research team rated the identified tools according to the predefined requirements and discussed the results until a consensus was reached.

Informed by recent insights on sustainable business model innovation (e.g., Breuer et al., 2018), we collaborated with two design experts to develop the first Impact Circle prototype in stage 2. Both have more than 10 years of professional experience in developing design-based tools, and one holds a PhD in design sciences. Upon development, we then tested the Impact Circle's main components and functionalities iteratively with several students as representative users. We observed how they used the Impact Circle and interviewed them about their experience. Based on these insights, we revised the prototype.

In stage 3, two student teams applied the prototype as a homework exercise during a sustainable entrepreneurship seminar at the Technische Universität Berlin. They used the Impact Circle to reflect the impacts of a previously developed business opportunity and subsequently ideated sustainable business ideas. We evaluated the method's effectiveness and general user experience using surveys and participant

interviews. In addition, we presented the prototype to industry representatives and researchers at a scientific conference to obtain further feedback and improvement suggestions.

While the first application generally supported the Impact Circle's methodology, the results indicated that it required a redesign (stage 4). We discussed the findings with the design experts and realized several improvements within a second prototype. Furthermore, we enhanced the application review process by collecting additional and more systematic data.

The second Impact Circle prototype was applied in 2 online workshops with 50 students in total (stage 5). Twelve moderators supported the application by providing methodological guidance and collecting dense observational data on each participating team. We reviewed the workshops using extensive quantitative and qualitative data, encompassing (1) participant survey results, (2) +140 participant feedback notes, and (3) moderator observation forms. Moreover, we presented the Impact Circle to practitioners from university incubators to receive additional feedback. A data clustering enabled us to identify 132 insights containing improvement suggestions, praise, and general feedback, leading to some (minor) methodological enhancements.

In stage 6, we conducted additional five workshops with 107 participants to validate the adjustments to the Impact Circle's methodology. We deliberately applied the method in different contexts, including a university business incubation program and an offline workshop, to better understand its benefits for practice. We continued our data extraction strategy throughout the applications and hence gathered additional insights. As the results confirmed the Impact Circle's methodology and yielded only minor improvement suggestions, we concluded its maturity. Furthermore, we started dissemination activities using a website, meetings with practitioners, and conference presentations. Table 1 outlines the workshops performed during the method development process.

Given the few clear assessment measures in SBM tool development (Geissdoerfer et al., 2016), we employed various qualitative and quantitative indicators to assess the Impact Circle during its development, summarized in Table 2. Following the Impact Circle's main goal to trigger more integrated, sustainable business ideas, we developed the "high-impact ideas" indicator as a quantitative measure in addition to the qualitative participant feedback. It accounts for those ideas that the teams rated with high societal impact and high feasibility scores. An alternative approach could have been ratings by external experts. However, we decided to use team assessments instead because they (1) lower the bias of individual subjectivity, (2) entail a more informed evaluation as the teams can better judge the new idea related to their existing business model, and (3) are more convenient to implement in SEE. Nevertheless, adding expert ratings can mean a valuable extension, as they enable to control for potential biases, such as industry inexperience or overconfidence.

Table 1 Overview of Impact Circle workshops

a The team sizes varied across and within the workshops. For instance, No. 5 and 6 included teams with one member, while No. 4 had a team with seven members. Across the workshops, the average team size was 3.66

Table 2 Overview of assessment indicators during the Impact Circle's development

# 4 Results

In stage 1, our methodology enabled us to identify seven criteria for SEE tools, such as ease of use, creative capacity, integrated sustainable thinking, and system perspective. Our desktop research identified 25 existing sustainable entrepreneurship tools. However, only a few met the predefined requirements and are thus relevant to the SEE context. Among them, the value mapping approach of (Bocken et al., 2013) stood out as it satisfied most of the predefined requirements. However, even though it enables users to identify diverse stakeholder value effects, it falls short in exploring novel conflict-resolving ideas. Thus, we decided to build upon the value mapping approach and extend it.

The discussion with design experts in stage 2 suggested bisociation as the central mechanism for identifying sustainable business ideas. We conceptualized the first prototype as a stand-alone tool that builds on two steps. First, users reflect the sustainability of an existing business model by identifying its positive and negative impacts on different stakeholder categories along the value chain. Second, users develop sustainable business ideas by randomly combining the identified value effects using bisociation. During the initial testing, the research team observed first confirming evidence. The participants could quickly identify various and diverse stakeholders for a given case start-up in the last mile logistic sector, such as drone manufacturers, senior citizens, local policy-makers, and post offices. Moreover, their bisociation ability generated multiple novel ideas that entailed more sustainable business ideas, e.g., realizing the B2C approach within a sharing business model. Most importantly, during the interviews, the participants reported that they enjoyed the bisociation exercise as it enabled them to apply a creative perspective on business model innovation.

The prototype application in stage 3 provided mixed evidence. Albeit the participants confirmed the overall usability of the tool, the survey yielded an average overall rating of 4.14 and an average bisociation rating of 4.42 on a 7-point Likerttype scale (see Table 3), thus indicating a need for improvement. In addition, the

Table 3 Overview of the Impact Circle's survey and workshop results

<sup>a</sup>N <sup>=</sup>153 b The Impact Matrix assessments were added to the methodology during workshop 2

c No data collected

d Given that start-ups participated, we faced time constraints and had to streamline the assessment; thus, tracking individual participants and comparative group performance were impossible

e Weighted average rating

participant interviews revealed that team- and idea-related issues impacted the team performance. For instance, the team members missed a common understanding of the initial business model, which deteriorated the stakeholder identification process. Furthermore, the teams were overwhelmed by group discussions on stakeholder value effects and novel ideas. Some members reported that they contributed only little to the overall team performance due to opinion leaders. We realized that the Impact Circle's effectiveness is dependent on contextual conditions, such as the readiness of the initial idea or team commitment. Thus, we searched for a novel application case to better control the contextual conditions during the subsequent development process.

The research team discussed the findings with the design experts (stage 4) and revised the first prototype. First, we reconceptualized the Impact Circle as a workshop with guiding moderators to improve the teamwork. Second, we divided the value mapping and ideation steps into an individual task performed separated from the other team members to enable individual creativity and a subsequent team discussion. Third, we expanded the methodology by introducing two new steps, the Impact Draft and the Impact Matrix (described below) to account for contextual conditions. Fourth, we modified the stakeholder categories to enable a more nuanced identification of stakeholder value effects as suggested by the experts. For instance, we added "staff and shareholder" as a new stakeholder category to account for an internal organizational perspective. Moreover, we developed several inspirational questions for each stakeholder category to support the participants' stakeholder identification process.

The revised prototype and extended data extraction enabled several findings during the second pilot application (stage 5). As shown in Table 3, the participants rated the overall method and the bisociation better than the first pilot. Moreover, the data showed that the Impact Circle enabled the teams in workshop 2 to generate approximately 21 ideas on average, with approximately four high-impact ideas per team. The participant feedback and moderator observations enabled us to identify some (minor) method improvements. Most feedback focused on the workshop design rather than its methodology, which showed the increasing maturity of the Impact Circle. Major revisions comprised updated moderator guidelines, a simplified visual design, and more precise preparatory communication. Moreover, as suggested by the expert consultations, we extended the workshop introduction with some sustainable entrepreneurship theories, i.e., impact logical models and theories of changes.

Continuous applications (stage 6) provided further methodological confirmation. While the overall workshop and bisociation ratings varied per workshop, which might be explained by individual, group, or contextual factors, they generally remained high. After conducting 8 workshops, the weighted average rating for bisociation was 5.82 out of 7 and for the overall workshop 5.5 out of 7 (N = 153). On average, the teams generated between 6 to 17.2 ideas per team, with approximately 18 to 22 percent of them considered high impact and high feasibility. Furthermore, on average, approximately 38.7 percent of all stakeholders generated belong to the civil society and politics or natural environment category, thus indicating the Impact Circle's effectiveness in emphasizing holistic reflection. The qualitative participant feedback provided additional insights. For instance, in workshop 7, we received 131 feedback comments, of which 72 percent contained positive feedback. Throughout the applications, the number of methodological improvement suggestions decreased to only four in workshop 7. Hence, our adjustments were only minor and focused on the workshop facilitation, such as rescheduling the breaks or an inspiration board with exemplary stakeholders. Given the supporting evidence, we concluded methodological maturity and initiated its dissemination.

### 5 Discussion and Conclusions

This chapter's goal was to develop a new SEE method that supports the discovery of sustainable business ideas. In the following, we answer our research question by elaborating the Impact Circle's application and outlining how bisociation contributes to SBM development.

# 5.1 The Impact Circle Method

The extensive method development process resulted in the final Impact Circle, displayed in Fig. 2. While it may also be a stand-alone tool, we developed the Impact Circle method as an interactive workshop. Given the time indications in Table 4, we experienced an optimal team size of three to four people with one moderator for every three teams. The final methodology contains six steps, whereby two are recommended but optional depending on the available time and overall context. Corresponding to our first research goal of facilitating impact assessments, the Impact Circle's steps 1 to 3 enable teams to understand their business model's various impacts. The first step is to elaborate on the value creation logic of an initial business model (1). This step enables the team members to systemize existing outcomes and impacts and prepares for the subsequent steps. Then, each team member brainstorms how the business model affects stakeholders (value effects) (2). The Impact Circle's visual design nudges its users to consider five stakeholder categories and describe both positive and negative effects. The value effect mapping thus spurs a holistic understanding of business model impacts (Bocken et al., 2013). The team then discusses and expands upon the identified effects (3). This step fosters a mutual comprehension of the value effects, triggers creativity for identifying additional effects, and ensures overall clarity and coherence.

Steps 4 to 6 correspond to our second outlined research goal of supporting the entrepreneurial discovery of more integrated, sustainable business ideas. In step 4, the teams build upon the value effects identified in steps 2 and 3 and use them as ideation inputs. Each team member chooses two (or more) effects and engages in bisociation thinking for generating ideas that integrate the effects (4). By creatively ideating solutions that address two negative effects or combining negative and positive effects, the team may resolve the negative consequences of their initial

Fig. 2 Visualization of the Impact Circle method

business model, enhancing its sustainable impacts and transforming it into an SBM. In turn, by combining various positive effects, the teams may identify synergies and thus scale sustainable impacts. Ultimately, the emerging new ideas typically involve extensions and variations of the initial business model but also entirely novel business opportunities. Subsequently, as in step 3, the novel ideas are discussed and expanded within the team (5). Given that a team identifies approximately 15 ideas on average, the final step contains an optional rating exercise (6). The team members jointly assess the identified ideas concerning their feasibility and impact potential from "low" to "high" on a simplified 5 × 5 matrix. This step enables them to identify the most promising ideas, quick wins, and strategic opportunities and provides an informed basis for the next steps.

To support educators and other practitioners in applying the Impact Circle, we provide detailed instructions in Table 4, corresponding to our third research goal of developing a suitable method for the SEE context. More information for practitioners can be accessed on the Impact Circle website: www.impact-circle. com or www.impact-circle.de

Table 4 Overview of the Impact Circle method

(continued)

Table 4 (continued)

# 5.2 Bisociation and Sustainable Business Ideas

We developed the Impact Circle to expand the value mapping approach of (Bocken et al., 2013) with bisociation as a means for identifying sustainable business ideas. It is beyond the scope of this paper to validate the proposed relationship between the sustainability of a business idea and bisociation thinking, which constitutes a promising avenue for future research. However, despite their limited explanatory power, our results indicate that bisociation contributes to SBM innovation.

First, throughout the workshops, the participants praised the "effect-combination approach" and the ideas it generated. In total, we received 34 positive feedback statements on bisociation, which account for 44 percent of the positive feedback statements and 9 percent of all comments. For instance, the participants commented, "[the method] triggers idea generation and causes you to take an alternative approach" (workshop 2) or "[the method is a] useful mental model to think solutions for sustainability-related problems" (workshop 4). Second, across the cases, the participants rated the statement "I believe the combination of different stakeholder value effects is a promising approach in generating sustainable ideas" with 5.82 out of 7 on average (N = 153). Third, we observed that many participants described how and which stakeholder value effects they combined during the fifth process stage instead of simply outlining the new idea. We interpret this observation as an individual urge to display their subjective creativity in coming up with sustainable business ideas and their overall satisfaction with the methodology. Fourth, the various experts consulted during the development process recognized the "innovative" approach to SBM innovation, further supporting the potential of bisociation in sustainable entrepreneurship.

# 5.3 Contributions

Our chapter contributes to research and practice in three regards. First, we developed a novel method for SBM innovation that educators and other practitioners can apply using our instructions in Table 4. Second, our methodology illustrates a systematic process for developing a design-based innovation method for SEE. Various data types, research methods, contexts, and iterations exemplified a rigorous approach to designing SBM tools. Our findings may inspire future research to build upon our methodology. Third, we foster interdisciplinary research by integrating design science within sustainable entrepreneurship research. Finally, although previous research has largely neglected the topic, our findings illustrate bisociation as a promising phenomenon for understanding entrepreneurial cognition and creativity.

### 6 Acknowledgments

We thank Florian Paschke for his valuable contributions to designing the Impact Circle.

### References

Marc Karahan is a researcher and lecturer on sustainable entrepreneurship at the Technische Universität Berlin. He explores how entrepreneurial support organizations, i.e., incubators and accelerators, enable entrepreneurs to foster sustainable development and organizational change processes for sustainability.

Caro Noemi Stoeckermann As innovation manager at the Centre for Entrepreneurship, Caro Noemi Stoeckermann supports technology transfer and collaboration between science and business at Technische Universität Berlin. She initiates co-creation formats to help entrepreneurs transfer their technologies from research to practice and create a positive impact.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Threshold Concepts in Entrepreneurship Education and their Implications for Teaching and Learning

### Jan-Martin Geiger, Lucy Hatt, Emanuel Mizzi, Ronald Kriedel, Andreas Liening, Judit Katonáné Kovács, and Victoria Mountford-Brown

Abstract In view of the continuing growth and importance of entrepreneurship education within the educational landscape, there remains a significant demand for theoretical as well as practical approaches. In particular, there is a demand for approaches that shed light on the interplay between course design and individual learning. This chapter draws on the threshold concept approach, which is becoming an increasingly important perspective in educational research. Whilst the threshold concept approach has been applied usefully to develop the pedagogy of various academic disciplines, for example, economics, healthcare and information literacy, they have so far received little attention in the context of entrepreneurship education. The threshold concept approach addresses the question of how learners can practise an exploratory, reflexive approach to discipline and subject-area-specific ways of thinking and practising. The contribution of our chapter is twofold: firstly, we want to show that the threshold concept approach offers a new perspective for theory and practice in entrepreneurship education through its focus on bridging a disciplinary way of thinking and practising, on the one hand, and a subjective view of entrepreneurial phenomena, on the other hand. Secondly, in order to enrich entrepreneurial

J.-M. Geiger (✉) · A. Liening

L. Hatt · V. Mountford-Brown

E. Mizzi

#### R. Kriedel

J. K. Kovács

Faculty of Philology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Technology and Entrepreneurship Education, University of Malta, Msida, Malta e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Center for Entrepreneurship & Transfer, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Faculty of Economics & Business Administration, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
J. H. Block et al. (eds.), Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training, FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28559-2\_23

teaching and learning conceptualizations, this chapter presents a review of the candidate entrepreneurial threshold concepts which have appeared in the literature to date, in order to characterize them as a potential starting point for a promising field of research.

Keywords Threshold concepts · Entrepreneurship education · Entrepreneurial learning

### 1 Introduction

Whilst entrepreneurship education is becoming increasingly important within the high school and higher educational landscapes (Nabi et al., 2017; Kuckertz, 2021), there is still a lack of learning theory and pedagogical approaches in the practical design and scientific investigation of appropriate teaching-learning formats (Fayolle, 2013; Thrane et al., 2016). Systematic consideration is needed to discern how the micro-level (individual courses) and macro-level (curricula) can be designed to enable learners to intensively develop entrepreneurial ways of thinking and practising.

Following this need, we draw on the threshold concept approach (Meyer & Land, 2003a; Land et al., 2005), which is becoming an increasingly important perspective in educational research. Threshold concepts can be defined as those disciplinary concepts that are essential to the nature of a discipline, encompass characteristic ways of thinking as well as practising and provide learners with access to a new world of ideas or new ways of doing things associated with a certain disciplinary knowledge and content base (Meyer & Land, 2003b). The integrative characteristic of threshold concepts reveals meaningful relationships between further disciplinary concepts, but the process of understanding them can also contain difficulties for learners due to their transformative potential. Aligned with a focus on learner autonomy and a subjective perspective of entrepreneurial phenomena, they follow a constructivist view of individual learning—a perspective that is regarded as important within entrepreneurship education research (Robinson et al., 2016). Whilst the threshold concept approach has been applied usefully to develop the pedagogy of various academic disciplines, for example, economics (Barradell & Peseta, 2017), health and social care (Barradell & Peseta, 2017) and information literacy (Townsend et al., 2016), they have so far received little attention in the context of entrepreneurship education. Certainly, the popularity of the threshold concept approach appears to be more evident in comparatively newer subject areas and could be perhaps associated with their respective need to establish disciplinary identity. Therefore, the following research question arises: what contribution can the threshold concept approach make to entrepreneurship education?

In order to enrich entrepreneurial teaching and learning conceptualizations, this chapter presents a systematic overview of the candidate entrepreneurial threshold concepts appearing in the literature to date. After a theoretical introduction to the threshold concept framework and its relevance for entrepreneurial teaching and learning, existing research approaches used to identify candidate threshold concepts in entrepreneurship are set out, and a systemic overview of the candidate entrepreneurial threshold concepts published so far is presented. Finally, implications for the practical integration of candidate entrepreneurial threshold concepts in entrepreneurship curricula are considered and research into entrepreneurship education using the threshold concept approach is discussed.

### 2 The Threshold Concept Approach

The threshold concept approach, which can be traced back to Meyer and Land (2003b), is gaining increasing recognition in the context of general as well as discipline-specific teaching and learning considerations. Threshold concepts are understood to be concepts that function in a similar way to 'portals' which allow learners to access a new, previously hidden view of disciplinary phenomena (Meyer & Land, 2003a, 2006a). They are associated with an expert perspective and function as 'jewels in the curriculum' because of their significance to a learner's journey (Land et al., 2005). Like a doorway, tunnel or bridge, threshold concepts enable a fundamentally changed and transformative perspective of a discipline. Threshold concepts can consequently involve troublesome knowledge which may not be readily accessible to novices as a result.

According to Ashwin (2008) and Mead and Gray (2010), threshold concepts can be understood as objects, ideas and patterns of thought that share common properties. For example, the market concept hypothesized as an economic threshold concept (Ashwin, 2008) includes different categories such as the labour market, the financial market or the resource market, but has common characteristics such as demand, supply or price-quantity combination. In addition to this categorizing form, disciplinary ways of thinking can also be referred to as procedural threshold concepts (Davies & Mangan, 2006), if they are specific to a discipline and support the development of disciplinary contexts and models. For example, procedural threshold concepts in economics could be equilibrium considerations or the marginal principle.

Whilst not claiming theoretical status in the strictest sense, the threshold concept approach is in the tradition of cognitivist-constructivist learning theories such as cognitive development (Piaget, 1978), conceptual change (Strike & Posner, 1982) and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991), which also occupy a central position within entrepreneurship education research (Geiger, 2022). What these theories have in common is that learners self-determine and actively co-create their own learning paths. The threshold concept approach bridges the gap between a disciplinary conceptual level, which is particularly concerned with the scientifically based development of specialized knowledge, and a subjective conceptual level, in which learners describe specialized phenomena from their individual perspective. Bringing together disciplinary and individual conceptual change is a critical step in better understanding and targeting the interplay between learning arrangements and individual learning trajectories. This is probably one of the main reasons why the threshold concept approach has gained importance in the theory and practice of teaching and learning and is becoming increasingly relevant in various disciplines (Land et al., 2016).

# 2.1 Attributes of Threshold Concepts

Across a range of subject contexts, threshold concepts can be characterized by their transformative, irreversible, integrative, bounded, troublesome, discursive and reconstitutive attributes. These attributes are described in further detail in the following.

If a specific concept is to be called a threshold concept, it must be transformative. Once understood, its potential effect on a student is to bring about transformational learning that includes a significant change in how the student perceives the discipline (Meyer & Land, 2003b; Meyer & Land, 2005). Threshold concepts not only transform epistemologically but also lead to a transfiguration of identity and the adoption of new external discourse. Grasping a threshold concept 'involves an ontological as well as a conceptual shift. [...] New understandings are assimilated into our biography, becoming part of who we are, how we see and how we feel' (Cousin, 2006, p. 4). This process of transformation can be likened to the learner adopting a fluid state as they pass across, along and through the portal. It is a chaotic journey across conceptual terrain (Cousin, 2006), which involves changes in ways of knowing, becoming and being, where the latter represents the agency to think in the subject (Timmermans & Meyer, 2019).

Corresponding with their transformative potential, threshold concepts fulfil an integrating function. When a person grasps a threshold concept, what formerly appeared to be different and dissimilar elements are brought into a coherent relationship (Cousin, 2006; Baillie et al., 2013). The experience can be likened to adding a particular jigsaw piece that completes the picture to enable a new and meaningful perspective of the whole. Students become aware of 'the previously hidden interrelatedness' of concepts, beliefs and theories (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 373). Threshold concepts provide them with a 'window' that assists them in understanding the disciplinary dimensions of a subject and its underlying structures. Mastering a threshold concept enables individuals to make connections that were hitherto hidden from their perspective (Cousin, 2006).

The learning and transformations involved in fully grasping or understanding a threshold concept are irreversible. Once learned, a threshold concept would be very 'unlikely to be forgotten or unlearned only through considerable effort' (Meyer & Land, 2005 p. 373). This characteristic reflects the cognitivist-constructivist theoretical basis that assumes that individual world views are robust and resistant to external perturbations (Geiger, 2022). Baillie et al. (2013) contend that 'once understood the concept cannot become "not-understood"' (p. 229). This may be part of the reason why some experts find difficulty in accepting why some students do not understand what seems blindingly obvious to them (Meyer & Land, 2003b). Expert practitioners looking back across thresholds they have personally long since crossed find it difficult to understand (from their own transformed perspective) the difficulties faced by students from the student's (untransformed) perspectives (Meyer & Land, 2005).

Threshold concepts tend to be experienced as troublesome. They may represent, or lead to, what Perkins (2006) describes as 'troublesome knowledge'. This is knowledge that is conceptually difficult because of its counterintuitive nature which may be subversive, alien (emanating from another culture or discourse) or incoherent (where discrete aspects are unproblematic but there is no obvious organizing principle). Threshold concepts might not be easily assimilated or accommodated within one's existing frame of meaning. As such, they can often be troublesome as they entail a letting-go of earlier, comfortable positions and encountering less familiar and sometimes disconcerting new territory that transforms the learning of a person (Meyer & Land, 2003b; Cousin, 2006). The transformation, though necessary for progress within the subject, may prove 'personally disturbing and disorienting, leading to hesitancy or even resistance in learners' (Meyer & Land, 2003b, p. 3). It is through encounters with troublesome knowledge that students can revise their prevailing conceptions, consider matters differently, think otherwise and see anew. This can be exhilarating and liberating, but it can also prove unsettling and uncomfortable. However, without a certain amount of anxiety and risk, there is a limit to how much learning occurs: 'One must have something at stake. No emotional investment, no intellectual or formational yield' (Shulman, 2005, p. 22).

Threshold concepts may also be bounded in conceptual spaces that have terminal frontiers (Meyer & Land, 2005). Such boundedness may in certain instances serve to constitute the demarcation between disciplinary areas and define academic territories. The establishment of such boundaries may raise issues relating to hierarchy and relations of power within learning environments and epistemic communities (Cousin, 2006). One should be aware, for instance, that since a threshold concept can be a form of disciplinary property, its presence in a curriculum 'may carry an inherent tendency to invite congealed understandings' (Cousin, 2006, p. 4). One mitigation implicated by this tendency is to adopt an attitude of questioning the concepts themselves, perceiving their explanatory capacity as provisional, temporal (in that it is being continually socially (re)constructed) and contextual.

Meyer and Land (2005) also posit discursive and reconstitutive attributes of threshold concepts and suggest that learning a threshold concept will necessarily incorporate an enhanced and extended use of language. They contend that 'it is hard to imagine any shift in perspective that is not simultaneously accompanied by (or occasioned through) an extension of the student's use of language' (p. 374). Besides leading to a transfiguration of identity, threshold concepts facilitate the adoption of a more elaborate discourse and the capacity to meaningfully participate in the high-level narratives of a subject that express and reflect a new level of thinking in the discipline (Baillie et al., 2013). These aspects indicate a person who belongs to an epistemic community.

# 2.2 Importance of Threshold Concepts Framework for Entrepreneurship Education

A major concern in entrepreneurship education research is a lack of identified approaches with the potential to make significant contributions to learning theory and pedagogical issues (Fayolle, 2013). This may be explained by the fact that entrepreneurship education has attracted scholars from many different disciplines and become a highly multidisciplinary field, which has led to a very fragmented scholarly community. Legitimacy for entrepreneurship in academia has been anchored in 'external stakeholders' (practitioners, policymakers and politicians) (Landström & Harirchi, 2018). Without a conceptual framework or clear theoretical grounding, the academic identity of entrepreneurship is especially susceptible to external forces, such as genericism, market and economic trends (Hatt, 2020); hence, its identity as an academic subject is fragile and vulnerable. When entrepreneurship education is defined by its measurable usefulness in application, it loses sight of its core purpose and becomes pulled in many different directions, destined to fail. Not having evolved from other academic disciplines, entrepreneurship is still in search of its academic identity (Wiklund et al., 2019). The boundaries of entrepreneurship as an academic subject require definition, so both what it is and what it is not are clear. The threshold concept approach addresses these issues and offers the opportunity to define entrepreneurship as being about who the learners become and also about what knowledge they come to possess.

Although entrepreneurship education can build on several constructivist learning theoretical considerations such as cognitive development or transformative learning, there is still a lack of understanding of the mechanisms that encourage learners to work on their individual opportunity nexus (Shane, 2003). It seems common sense that entrepreneurial learning may include different dimensions such as cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects that all have an impact on how and what is learned. For example, Mitchell et al. (2017) take a cognitivist perspective and draw attention to the development of individual entrepreneurial scripts during entrepreneurial learning. Arpiainen et al. (2013) study the importance of emotions in entrepreneurial learning processes, highlighting that emotional experiences during the learning event such as "joy" or "fear" can have an impact on the learning. However, there is still a lack of understanding of the interplay between these dimensions in entrepreneurial learning processes. In this context, Krueger (2017) draws attention to the fact that entrepreneurial learning can be understood as a transformation process from a novice perspective to an expert perspective of entrepreneurial phenomena such as founding or innovating. The encounter with 'critical developmental experiences' (Krueger, 2017) is identified as a learning opportunity that can lead to an updating of subjective beliefs regarding entrepreneurship and is characteristic of the novice-expert transformation. In this, there are striking parallels to the threshold concept approach, within which the encounter with threshold concepts can trigger such an exploration and actualization of subjective beliefs and associated behaviours. It is especially the transformative character of threshold

Fig. 1 Implications of the threshold concept framework for entrepreneurship education

concepts that implies that not only an accumulation of knowledge takes place, but that learners shape this process independently and construct their own knowledge and identity.

Beside the ontology of entrepreneurial learning, threshold concepts inform different didactical aspects of entrepreneurship education (Fayolle, 2013). With regard to curricular integration, the threshold concept framework proposes content that is suitable for an approach to phenomena which are typical of a discipline. The aim is always to enable learners to relate this content to their own lifeworld and to question their previous perspective of disciplinary phenomena. With regard to the methodological dimension, educators should vary those phenomena to enable learners to recognize them in different contexts. Value creation, for example, may occur in profit-oriented firms as well as in non-profit-orientated social enterprises (Geiger, 2022). With regard to the learners, learning goals and the evaluation of learning, threshold concepts enable a focus on the individual perception of entrepreneurial phenomena. Thus, this approach differs from others that, for example, aim at the development of beliefs, behavioural intentions or competencies of learners. The subjective nature of threshold concept learning requires the use of appropriate diagnostic instruments such as concept maps, which can be used to capture individual perceptions. Figure 1 illustrates how the threshold concept framework may inform different aspects of entrepreneurship education.

The threshold concept approach offers a deeper understanding of how learners shape their individual transformation process. It is the potentially troublesome knowledge that can be hidden in threshold concepts that can cause previous thinking patterns to consequently prove dysfunctional, for example, existing routines in entrepreneurial decision-making (Cope, 2003), and for learners to disengage from them. As they start to understand a threshold concept, learners enter a liminal space within which they test new thinking patterns. In coping with this mental suspension phase, positively or negatively valenced emotions can occur, which can support or inhibit learners in pattern testing. The threshold concept approach offers potential for connection here in two ways. Firstly, the transformative, arduous potential of threshold concept understanding can trigger such critical learning phases within the individual learning process, and secondly, threshold concept characteristics offer criteria by which individual learning progress can be operationalized (Geiger, 2022). For example, it can be assumed that a person with entrepreneurial expertise uses language differently to novices. This could be an alternative to operationalizing expertise, which has so far often been operationalized through measuring the duration of a particular activity.

Entrepreneurial learning is conceptualized in this way both as acquisition and participation. Knowledge and understanding of entrepreneurship are both cognitively and socially constructed through research and practice. The objective of entrepreneurship education is then to further the knowledge and understanding of entrepreneurship in the students both in terms of what they know and who they are and to enable them to understand how an entrepreneur thinks and practises in the world (Hatt, 2020). Having set out the arguments for fruitful course design and curriculum development using the threshold concept framework, we now provide an overview of entrepreneurial candidate threshold concepts in the literature.

# 3 An Overview of Candidate Threshold Concepts in Entrepreneurship

Despite the growing attention to the threshold concept framework in manifold disciplines, there is little published work concerning threshold concepts and entrepreneurship. To our knowledge, only few studies, namely, Bolinger and Brown (2015), Vidal et al. (2015), Geiger et al. (2016), Hatt (2018), Hatt (2020) and Geiger (2022), explore threshold concepts in entrepreneurship education. From a disciplinary perspective, discussing potential candidate entrepreneurial threshold concepts is an interesting way to surface which concepts lie at the very heart of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial threshold concepts also offer a means to address pedagogical issues, as they describe a systematic approach for entrepreneurial course design as well as curriculum development.

Candidate threshold concepts in entrepreneurship hypothesized in the literature to date that we are aware of are as follows:

• Corporate social responsibility, business ethics and sustainability, hypothesized as threshold concept by Vidal et al. (2015).

Threshold concepts are especially significant for disciplinary teaching and learning because they address specific phenomena and ways of thinking, and as a consequence their potential for entrepreneurship education must be highlighted. The listed concepts gain their threshold concept status potential by fulfilling the specific attributes as discussed in Sect. 2.1. In this section the subjective perception of entrepreneurial phenomena such as venture creation and innovation as well as the positioning of one's own person in relation to these phenomena will be discussed in particular.

All candidate threshold concepts from the list above have transformative potential with regard to the perception of entrepreneurial phenomena. Vidal et al. (2015) see 'corporate social responsibility, business ethics and sustainability' as a threshold concept that embeds entrepreneurial activity in a context that lies outside of classic shareholders such as owners. It becomes clear that corporate values can also be felt by people beyond shareholders and that companies can be part of a social ecosystem. This view expands classical profit considerations based on margin accounting and thus exhibits transformative potential for learners.

Whilst a lay perspective of 'failure' often has negative connotations, Bolinger and Brown (2015) observe that expert entrepreneurs have a much more complex conceptual structure in this regard and are more likely to interpret failure as a starting point for building expertise. In this way, it is possible to open up previously hidden contexts of meaning and to open up new conceptual spaces. Interpreting failure from such a perspective can be troublesome for learners. This is especially true when failure is accompanied by negative feelings and leads to resigned behaviour. In this respect, dealing with failure as a process of 'iterative experimentation' within entrepreneurship education can lead to learners reflecting on their own and others' failure moments (e.g. in the form of case studies) and understanding them as opportunities for learning and expertise building.

'Effectuation' also harbours transformative potential, which lies especially in the orientation towards possible ends-means combinations. Effectuation itself is explicitly referred to as a 'theoretical shift' (Sarasvathy, 2001b) and offers a specific, contingency-based perspective of entrepreneurial phenomena. It also opens up new contexts of meaning insofar as a conceptual separation of plannability and control occurs. Effectual principles of action require a focus on controllable actions and thus demand, for example, that existing means instead of abstract goals be made the starting point for entrepreneurial decisions or that competitors be simultaneously regarded as potential partners (Sarasvathy, 2008). The transformative potential of effectuation is only made possible by the inclusion of causal ways of thinking, so that these are particularly helpful for learners when they find their way into entrepreneurship education in a contrasted way, allowing learners to reflect on their perspectives (Geiger, 2022). This can, for example, fundamentally change the view of relationships with other people or existing resources. This small-step approach enables a new perspective of such entrepreneurial contexts, which are characterized by high degrees of freedom and are described in the research literature as 'uncertain', 'complex' or 'dynamic' (for overviews, see Liening et al., 2016; Liening (2017). For learners, adopting an effectual mindset may be fraught with difficulty, especially if they are oriented towards plannability and predictive logic. In this context, Dew et al. (2009) illustrate that an effectual approach involves awareness of abortion criteria ('affordable loss')—a fundamental contrast to decision criteria focused on profit maximization.

According to Bandura (2006), human agency is about intentionally influencing one's functioning and life circumstances. When an individual recognizes their agency, they see value creation as a self-organizing, proactive and self-regulating individual. They see the world as a person who reflects on their behaviour and learns from it, in order to contribute to their life circumstances. Personal efficacy is described by Bandura (2006) as a foundation of human agency, 'Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act, or to persevere in the face of difficulties' (Bandura, 2006, p. 170). Thus, 'Recognise their agency' can be explained as a combination of entrepreneurial intentionality, entrepreneurial forethought, entrepreneurial self-reactiveness and entrepreneurial self-reflectiveness. Entrepreneurial intentionality can be described as the intention to create value, including action plans and strategies for realizing action plans. Entrepreneurial forethought can be described as the setting of value creation goals and anticipating likely outcomes of prospective actions to guide and motivate efforts to these ends. Entrepreneurial self-reactiveness can be described as not only the deliberative ability to make choices and action plans with the aim of creating value, but also the ability to construct appropriate courses of action and to motivate and regulate their execution. Entrepreneurial self-reflectiveness can be described as the act of reflection on personal entrepreneurial efficacy, the soundness of associated thought and action and the meaning of entrepreneurial pursuits, making corrective adjustments as necessary. The importance of this threshold concept is highlighted by Jones (2019) as the aim of all entrepreneurship education globally. He described Entrepreneurial Agency as the 'essential capability argued to be the minimal outcome for EE [entrepreneurship education, t. a.]' (Jones, 2019, p. 244). Jones (2019) defines being entrepreneurial as being capable of self-negotiated action. He argues that self-negotiated action is prerequisite for and precedes value creation. 'Taking action' is taken to incorporate self-reactiveness, in particular both the making of and the execution of plans to create value.

'Knowledge is always partial and often ambiguous' also links to effectuation theory (Sarasvathy, 2001a). Sarasvathy (2001a) proposes that entrepreneurs are experts at exploiting contingencies that cannot be easily analysed or predicted and builds her theory on four principles which incorporate this idea of partial and ambiguous knowledge: affordable loss (contrasted with expected returns), strategic alliances (contrasted with competitive analysis), exploitation of contingencies (rather than exploitation of pre-existing knowledge) and controlling an unpredictable future (contrasted with predicting an uncertain future). Practitioners understand that you can still act even if the situation is not perfect, ideal or even favourable—but that the process of taking action is likely to lead to new situations, learnings and, ultimately, opportunities (Hatt & Jarman, 2021).

'Entrepreneurship is a practice' draws on a practice perspective from social science (De Clercq & Voronov, 2009), enabling a broader societal structure and the shared understandings that guide human behaviour, to be linked with a focus on the granular detail of everyday life. This construes people as improvisers whose identity and external environment are jointly and simultaneously co-created. Johannisson (2011, p. 136) signals a need for a framework that acknowledges entrepreneurship as 'an (everyday) hands-on practice, including routines as well as improvisation in order to cope with coincidence'. There is growing recognition that entrepreneurship is unlikely to be fully explained in the creation of a single venture (Wright et al., 1997) and some research has been done into the phenomenon of the 'serial' or 'habitual' entrepreneur, implying that value creation can be a habit and therefore contains transformative as well as irreversible potential. Others have emphasized the importance of habitual entrepreneurship, contrasting it with 'oneshot' entrepreneurship in scholarly efforts to build a comprehensive theory of entrepreneuring (Thorgren & Wincent, 2015).

Opportunity recognition is a well-researched area in entrepreneurship literature (Baron, 2006) and can be described as consisting of three aspects of recognition: actively or passively searching for opportunities, alertness to opportunities and prior knowledge enabling opportunity recognition. The basic cognitive process of pattern recognition has also been highlighted by Baron (2006) as a possible explanation of entrepreneurs' abilities to recognize opportunities. Shane (2003) presents a theory of entrepreneurship at the nexus of enterprising individuals and valuable opportunities. 'Context is opportunity to create value' also draws on effectuation, and the ways in which thinking and practising like an entrepreneur mean assuming all contexts not only are the source of opportunity for the creation of value but also present the means with which to bring it to fruition. Practitioners habitually and constantly create and recognize opportunities within their own context to create value (Hatt & Jarman, 2021).

'Value is defined by others' is associated with design thinking (Brown, 2008) where innovation is derived from a thorough understanding of what people want and need in their lives and what they like or dislike about what they currently have access to. Brown (2008) associated design thinking with empathy and a 'people first' approach. It also relates to the marketing theories of market research, customer value (Slater, 1997), market orientation (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993), customer development (Blank, 2013) and customer engagement (Harmeling et al., 2017).

The development of 'business models' as a threshold concept offers a consideration of the interplay of different aspects of organizational value creation (e.g., value proposition, revenue, cost) into a common architecture (Geiger, 2022). This makes it possible to consider the interplay of different aspects and thus to reflect on the value creation logic of organizations or to develop one's own. This opens up a perspective for learners that includes a development-oriented view of organizations (Teece, 2010). Business models can also be used in different contexts and allow for the consideration of organizations that operate in the non-profit sector. Here, too, value propositions, customer segments, expenditures and revenues exist without having to aim for profits. In this, there is a conceptual link to the corporate social responsibility concept mentioned above, which involves an expansion of value creation beyond monetary terms. Due to their complexity, which, on the one hand, lies in the multitude of value creation aspects and, on the other hand, in their interaction, business models can at the same time be transformative and troublesome for learners. The business model concept of Gassmann et al. (2013) comprises four, the business model concept of Osterwalder and Pigneur (2011) nine aspects that have to be brought into a meaningful context by learners. Business models have conceptual overlap with other lean approaches that are central to the development of business models and products, all of which take a small-step approach to developing business ideas (Shepherd & Gruber, 2020).

### 4 Discussion and Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was, firstly, to use the threshold concept framework to offer a new approach to investigating the interplay between entrepreneurship education, on the one hand, and individual learning paths, on the other hand. Its distinct feature is that it focuses on the subjective perception of disciplinary phenomena and therefore differentiated from other approaches such as competencies or behaviours and gives rise to important implications for the design of courses and curricula. Secondly, we have reviewed the current status of candidate threshold concepts hypothesized for entrepreneurship. Applying the threshold concept framework to entrepreneurship facilitates the planning and enactment of teaching and learning and assessment (Meyer & Land, 2003b; Baillie et al., 2013; Shanahan et al., 2006). Threshold concept can help educators explain the difficulties students encounter during the learning process, by providing links between the outcomes of learning and the deep or surface approaches to learning adopted by students. This can be used to better understand the impact on curriculum design and teaching approaches (Cousin, 2006) and assist reflection on what is being taught, how, why and when to streamline teaching and assessment approaches (Barradell, 2013).

The threshold concept framework can also be used as a lens to demarcate entrepreneurship, making a case for entrepreneurship as an academic subject in its own right, as well as to improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurship curriculum. 'A threshold concept necessarily helps to define the boundaries of a subject area because it clarifies the scope of a subject community' (Davies, 2006a). Research using the threshold concept approach promotes the development of discipline and subject-specific pedagogies and situates learning, acknowledging contextual considerations (Cousin, 2008). If candidate threshold concepts in entrepreneurship can be suggested, the boundaries of entrepreneurship may be set. Then an understanding of the student perspective of what it is to think 'like an entrepreneur' may be sought and ways to educate students in how to think 'like entrepreneurs' may be developed.

From a teaching and learning perspective, identifying threshold concepts in entrepreneurship is useful for entrepreneurship educators in a number of respects. Identifying some concepts as 'threshold' offers a way of differentiating between core learning goals which enable the learner to see things in a different way and other learning goals which do not have the same significantly enabling and transformative effect (Bolinger & Brown, 2015). This allows the educator to focus on the conceptual understandings that enable a fuller understanding of the subject and foster integration of knowledge, avoiding an overcrowded curriculum. Perhaps more importantly than designing the educational curriculum, the educator also has to be developed as an important stakeholder of the process. Entrepreneurial learning may include different dimensions like cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects. This also means it is not enough to know what has to be taught, but also how to teach it. Hägg and Jones (2021) urge entrepreneurship educators to tear down the inefficient walls and barriers with other professions and teaching settings by fostering a more open learning system that is tied to the community.

Knowledge of such threshold concepts can assist educators in developing and managing an entrepreneurship curriculum—employing a threshold concept approach for curriculum design (Cousin, 2006). It is in this sense that threshold concepts have been referred to as the 'jewels in the curriculum' because they help identify key areas that need mastery (Land et al., 2006). Hence, identifying what the threshold concepts are in entrepreneurship education is an important first step in curriculum design.

These threshold concepts can enable learners to better perceive the integrated nature of entrepreneurship. This is a major issue of teachers, that of helping students to 'get inside' the subject (Davies, 2006b, p. 76). The entrepreneurship curriculum should not be taught in isolated pieces but as an integrated part of a whole learning experience that encourages lifelong learning. Through a deliberate and conscious effort, educators can understand better the learners' experience in terms of how students learn a particular threshold concept and recognize when an 'aha' moment of understanding has been reached, but also how and why a student can get stuck in their learning journey.

A number of pedagogical issues can be considered when trying to support students in grasping entrepreneurship threshold concepts. Once a threshold concept has been hypothesized, educators are encouraged to provide students with basic concepts that may be open to variation (Meyer & Land, 2003b) but that form a foundation that can later be reworked when further teaching and learning takes place. This should be a gradual process informed by learning variation and the creation of awareness among students that tolerating uncertainty is a common part of the learning process. In due course, the knowledge of variation will inform new forms of pedagogical practice (Baillie et al., 2013). Attention must be given to the manner in which students are initially introduced to threshold concepts (Davies, 2006b). If a teacher introduces a threshold concept too early, it might be rendered inaccessible by the student and only learnt in a rote fashion (Davies, 2006b).

Educators should be aware that there exists variation in how they think about and understand entrepreneurship threshold concepts. They tend to develop knowledge of, and strategies for teaching and learning that are related to the sociocultural structures and mediated by their personal epistemologies. Educators need also to be aware that not all students experience threshold concepts in the same way. This realization might prove transformational for teachers as it influences their approaches to designing instruction (Timmermans & Meyer, 2019). The degree of troublesomeness associated with a particular threshold concept encountered by individual learners will also vary (Meyer & Land, 2006b). Some learners are willing, or even eager, to enter the liminal space in the hope of emerging transformed or coming to a new way of understanding, whilst others pause at the entrance seemingly unable or unwilling to let go of their pre-existing understandings. There is also individuality in the timing of the actual threshold crossing; understanding might also frequently be sighted and rejected on several occasions and only gradually accepted, if at all (White et al., 2016). Educators need to create 'holding environments' to safely support students through their experiences of difficulty in order that they may move on and succeed (Meyer & Land, 2006b). To help students acquire entrepreneurship threshold confidence and cross a threshold, educators need to cultivate the affective dimension of threshold concepts and help the learners believe that they belonged on the other side' (Felten, 2016, p. 6). Timmermans and Meyer (2019) maintain that this affective component involved in threshold concepts learning is an area that requires much further research. Educators need to be conscious that encounters with threshold concepts tend to be emotionally charged. They need to cultivate supportive attitudes and classroom climates that emphasize the value of personal relationships and enhance a safe classroom environment where students can actively participate in the learning process (Mizzi & Bartolo, 2007; Mizzi, 2018).

The perspectives opened up in this chapter provide potential for further research. The threshold concept framework can usefully enrich the ongoing discussion of the essence of entrepreneurship as a distinct discipline, for example, in relation to possible entrepreneurial concepts in the context of the proposed attributes (transformative, troublesome, etc.). In addition, threshold concepts offer an idea of how a novice-expert transformation can be modelled. There is rich potential for further research to explore how threshold concept encounters provoke emotional, cognitive and motivational aspects within entrepreneurial learning and influence the learning process.

### References

Jan-Martin Geiger is assistant professor at the University of Münster. His research focuses on the interfaces between entrepreneurship, education and digitalization.

Lucy Hatt is a senior lecturer and co-Degree Programme Director of the Executive MBA at Newcastle University Business School. She researches the value of the threshold concept approach in entrepreneurship curriculum development and evaluation in higher education.

Emanuel Mizzi is the Business Education coordinator at the Faculty of Education at the University of Malta. His interests lie within the teaching and learning of economics and the other business education subjects, entrepreneurship education and its infusion across these subjects.

Ronald Kriedel has been managing director of the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Transfer at the TU Dortmund University since 2017. His work focuses on the development, transformation and establishment of business models as well as the implementation and establishment of innovation processes.

Andreas Liening is holder of the Chair of Entrepreneurship and Economics Education and director of the Centre of Complexity Sciences and Entrepreneurship Education (CCSEE) at TU Dortmund University. He served for many years as dean of the Department of Business and Economics and as head of the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Transfer. His research focuses on the intersection of complexity sciences, entrepreneurship and education.

Judit Katonáné Kovács is an associate professor and coach at University of Debrecen, Hungary, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Her research focuses on the educator's role to develop entrepreneurship competence.

Victoria Mountford-Brown is an assistant professor in Entrepreneurship at Northumbria University, UK. Vicky's research interests include identities, social class and neurodiversity, entrepreneurship as practice, researcher entrepreneurial development and enterprise education pedagogy

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# Using Technology to Teach International Entrepreneurship: State-of-the-Art Practices and Opportunities

Cathryn Peoples and Siddhesh Kotwal

Abstract With a perspective that experience may be the best teacher, international entrepreneurship (IE) has long been exposed to limited ability to immerse oneself in a local opportunity, without undertaking a potentially large risk (in terms of, for example, cost, relevance of the entrepreneurship opportunity until in position, travel). However, the availability of and involvement with online technologies are changing the educational landscape in general, with the impact of introducing new opportunities which can benefit, specifically we believe, the international entrepreneurship learning experience. In this chapter, we therefore examine the modern approaches to using technology in support of teaching and learning pedagogy, with a view to recognising the contributions and benefits it can introduce. We recognise that technology is widely underutilised in the opportunities it introduces for immersing oneself in a remote international entrepreneurship opportunity, and we argue that there is an opportunity to support more realistic IE teaching and learning through its use. In this chapter, we therefore review the ways in which technology has been used to support teaching and learning in domains other than IE, before we consider its relevance in relation to IE education.

Keywords Technology · Teaching · International entrepreneurship · Distance education · Pedagogy

C. Peoples (✉)

© The Author(s) 2023 J. H. Block et al. (eds.), Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training, FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28559-2\_24

Faculty of Computing, Ulster University, Belfast, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
S. Kotwal National College of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
### 1 Introduction

While online learning is generally widely supported, there are many people, including both students and tutors, who prefer to teach and learn in a face-to-face environment (McDougall et al., 1994). This level of interaction is considered to be a crucial element of successful education in general—following a social constructivist approach – and particularly for less independent learners (Balan et al., 2017). We might assume that those who voluntarily opt into the online educational experience have the personal skills to perform well here (Wach & Wehrmann, 2014) they may be, for example, solitary, intrapersonal learners. Those who have not chosen to operate in an online mode, on the other hand, such as those forced into this education model as a consequence of Covid-19, may find the experience particularly challenging and not get the most out of the opportunities available (Wach, 2015). This consideration can be correlated with the teaching of international entrepreneurship (IE), where technology may be one of the only ways to facilitate realistic learning experiences. The use of technology will create situations where students have to operate online for exposure to the valuable learning opportunities. This can be challenging when students and tutors have limited technical abilities to participate in such experiences and where hardware and software resources are limited. Nonetheless, we argue that this may be the most scalable and sustainable way to facilitate realistic and valuable IE learning experiences.

In this chapter, we present an understanding of the challenges with teaching and learning (T&L) in the online mode, the desires of students in their IE T&L experiences and potential ways in which this process can be facilitated using modern technologies for the benefit of all.

### 2 What Is International Entrepreneurship?

International entrepreneurship involves the formation and exploitation of profitearning opportunities that require venturers to be proactive and innovative while understanding and considering the cross-border differences in entrepreneurs and their organisation based on cultural beliefs and attitudes towards entrepreneurship (Wang et al., 2018). Barriers to international entrepreneurship include language, cultural differences and difficulties of understanding the foreign market. These barriers are additional to the general barriers to entrepreneurship, which include gender, age, disposable resources, risk-taking and personal commitments, to name a few. The authors of (Cumming & Zhan, 2018) discuss recent trends in IE, which take into account the new ventures made possible through new internationalisation efforts, and consider the impact of modern technologies in supporting IE learning.

### 3 Theories of International Entrepreneurship

Some researchers believe that IE is a culmination of international business and entrepreneurship, such as in (Cumming & Zhan, 2018), while others insist that it also involves strategic management, such as in (Zahra, 2021) and (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008). International business differs from international entrepreneurship—the former bases its roots more thoroughly in internationalisation theory, and transaction cost theory and is influenced by economic factors resulting in internationalisation (Keis et al., 2017). These fields are similar in the sense that try to understand which countries possess competitive advantages over other countries (Crick et al., 2020) and which countries will consume more products from developed countries (Morgan, 2014); they are focussed on the theories of product cycles (Durand, 2018), bargaining theory (Higgins & Savoie, 2017) and global strategic rivalry (Allen, 2016). For a business, strategic management involves the implementation and execution of certain performance-enhancing initiatives by management on behalf of the owners (Pradita et al., 2019), while international entrepreneurship involves entrepreneurs handling the responsibility of strategic management. Most importantly, international entrepreneurship sees the entrepreneur as an economic agent who identifies and makes the most out of opportunities on an international basis (Keis et al., 2017).

International entrepreneurship can be considered to be based on the following concepts:

# 4 How Is International Entrepreneurship Taught in Practice?

Some argue that it is difficult to teach entrepreneurship in any sense, with the perception that this is a skill naturally embodied, or not (Vissak & Masso, 2017). IE is therefore a subject with opportunities to examine the teaching approach for particular effectiveness. Researchers continue to examine the most effective approaches to teach in general, with the evolution of learning styles as one example of how this can be facilitated. Human needs, as participants in the educational experience, continue to evolve in different directions. With greater proportions of society generally moving into online learning experiences, advancements in technology and students increasingly managing competing life pressures in parallel with study, teaching mechanisms are similarly evolving in response.

One approach to teaching international entrepreneurship is to visit countries with contrasting living circumstances and to examine the entrepreneurial activities in place there (Gudoniene & Rutkauskiene, 2019). This approach may be considered to be one of the most valuable; however, it brings challenges with expense and subsequent sustainability and scalability. Furthermore, with students being educated in online avenues in parallel with competing life pressures such as employment and/or family, being present in an alternative economy may simply be an opportunity they do not wish to explore.

Technology, on the other hand, can bring alternative cultures closer. However, while rapid technological change has been attributed as being one of the contributors supporting the internationalisation of entrepreneurship (Ocvirk, 2017), there is an irony in that technology has not played a similar critical role in teaching international entrepreneurship. Modern technologies are still relatively underutilised in the teaching role for a variety of reasons which include the availability of technology and technical expertise with using it. This can be considered to be true from both the teaching and student perspective.

Given the opportunities for using technology to support remote learning in the IE experience, it is relevant to correlate this with the general concept of online education due to the obvious parallels. There is a wide body of research which examines the technical options to supporting online learning, including the ways in which technology can be applied, which can otherwise be referred to the pedagogy, or andragogy when applied to adults, of teaching.

### 5 Pedagogical Frameworks