These early birth processes of entrepreneurial competencies among students combine experiential learning with school-based theoretical learning (Bozer et al., 2017). As potential next-generation members, these students have opportunities to learn through action-based research, problem-based learning, and case study approach, both pragmatically and theoretically. Opportunities and risks are reflecting realistic resources, as next-generation students benefit from having better resource access in comparison to other students (Vladasel et al., 2021). All these approaches support learning entrepreneurship in practice, and they can contribute to student participation in classes and thesis with synergy between theoretical and business practice-oriented thinking.

The conceptual knowledge among the students refers to the status before the venture has been started. Risk-taking, as a concept related to the processes before the venture takes place (Oosterbeek et al., 2010), is seen from multiple conceptual worlds among the student perceptions of entrepreneurial competencies. Risk-taking, as a meta-conceptual approach, reflects the early processes of entrepreneurial competency formation. As a meta-conceptual understanding, it is interlinked as entrepreneurial behavior, with entrepreneurial competencies like creativity and innovativeness. As a distinct factor between entrepreneurs and other individuals (Gartner, 1989), entrepreneurial competencies by potential next-generation members are future-, courage-, and opportunity-related risk-taking factors which are personally experienced perceptions.

Creativity and innovativeness, as distinct entrepreneurial competencies, increase conceptual knowledge on agile thinking, decision-making, and creation of newness (Oosterbeek et al., 2010). From the perspective of potential next generation, entrepreneurial competencies related to creativity and innovativeness are on cognition and decision-making and on having an entrepreneurial mindset which enables also creating clever and innovative solutions for the market through multiple perspectives of newness.

The role of sales and marketing among the potential next generation can be interpreted through the first working experiences bachelor students have had recently. Often starting with sales as a summer job, many of the students had the impression that sales and marketing are sources of entrepreneurial behavior, and thus a starting point for entrepreneurial competency formation, needed in new business development. Market knowledge, as a distinct factor among potential next generation, was perceived as market gap identification.

We chose to understand in this study cognitive component of entrepreneurship education (31; 32; 33). This limits the conative and affective type of education and its contribution in this study. Namely, cognitive constructions at the categories of analysis were based on skills related to starting the business and recognizing opportunities. Knowledge on competencies, risk-taking, and creativity were part of the conceptual interpretation. Related to cognitive skills, agile logic was part of the student narrative saturation. Marketing and sales skills were also conceptual perceptions of what entrepreneurial competencies are.

### 6 Conclusions

Potential next-generation entrepreneurs perceive entrepreneurial competencies from the perspectives of being competent in marketing, sales, risk-taking, creativity, innovativeness, and on understanding know-how and competencies in entrepreneurship through opportunity- and future-related dimensions they possess. The vision of competencies can be unclear and reflect in those cases unknown mysteries to students, which will be understood in the future as the career development will start. Experiential knowledge through the potential next-generation status enables students to perceive entrepreneurial competencies through their experiences. Potential next-generation members of entrepreneurial families need education tailored for them. First, they contain early experience-based knowledge on daily business operations in SMEs, which enables experiential learning through earlier communication, participation, observation, and traineeships. Second, potential next-generation entrepreneurs have resource access which enables opportunity recognition and possibly in the future seizing of entrepreneurial opportunities. Third, risk-taking related to entrepreneurship is well-known for them, which enables them to understand their own risk-taking behavior and causal relationships related to riskand-return ratios.

The conceptual contribution of the study is twofold. First, next-generation entrepreneurial competencies at the context of cognitive entrepreneurship education are conceptually pragmatic and action oriented. This operative nature at the concept of cognitive entrepreneurial competencies by next generation reflects the student mindset and the contexts they live at. Cognitive entrepreneurial competencies are an entrepreneurial knowledge pool, which enables young next-generation members to start businesses and to make a career in business. Next-generation member entrepreneurial competencies reflect conceptually start-up and growth entrepreneurship and creation of new innovations and business solutions for the markets. Thus, next-generation cognitive entrepreneurial competencies reflect conceptually the world of uncertainty and unexpected future.

Second, with regard to entrepreneurial intentions, this study contributes on applied skills. Thus, entrepreneurial competencies by next generation can be acquired and trained as a pool of skills. Pedagogy selected to cognitive training differs from conative and affective contexts. Thus, entrepreneurship educators should focus when training cognitive skills on start-up management skills, growth entrepreneurship, and sales and marketing. The elements of uncertainty, unpredictability, and sudden changes could be included into entrepreneurship education.

The approach of experienced participants in higher education challenges entrepreneurship education stakeholders to build demanding and meaningful learning environments for the potential next-generation entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship education in the case of experienced participants is typically experiential learning with active internships and career development. The role of academic teaching and higher education in entrepreneurship education pedagogy needs to be tailored according to the needs of the potential next-generation students.

Limitations of the study are concerning generalization of the results. Qualitative research advances conceptual thinking by increasing the understanding of concepts themselves. Therefore, generalizing results based on self-narrative studies to some population does not take place. We have not compared the next-generation and the non-next-generation students statistically at this current research setting. Instead of that self-narrative analysis enables us to discuss more about entrepreneurial competencies in the context of potential next-generation entrepreneurs. A major limitation of the study is regarding to the quality of the self-narratives produced by bachelor students. The quality and length of self-narratives varied, and in some cases, to increase reliability of the research, short answers were excluded from the categories of analysis. As self-narratives were a compulsory part of the course assignments and the questions were meaningful for young student career development, motivation to participate in self-reporting was supported.

Further research should focus on reflecting how we understand concepts and their intermeanings and realities in multiple contexts they derive. Contextually, an important implication could be to compare next-generation and non-next-generation students together and understand the realities they have in regard to entrepreneurial competencies. Longitudinal study, in which, first as students and later as graduates employed in a family business as the next-generation members, could be needed to understand the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in career development. More studies on family influence on next-generation entrepreneurship competencies could be studied at the context of family businesses to increase knowledge on the role of family businesses in next-generation entrepreneurial behavior.

Pedagogical implications do not stem from generalization of the results. Instead of that, a pedagogical approach must be chosen in qualitative research based on conceptual innovations. As each family business is unique in terms of social relationships and other resources, students need highly personal learning routes and study plans to recognize and to adopt entrepreneurial competencies needed.

### References

Dr. Juha Kansikas works as senior lecturer of entrepreneurship at the Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Kansikas is currently co-leading an Academy of Finland research project on business elite and executive education. His research interests are business elite, entrepreneurship education, and family entrepreneurship.

Pavlos Tarasanski M.Sc. is a PhD student and a researcher at the Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His research revolves around entrepreneurship education, with a focus on the relevant pedagogies and contents. He is the managing director of Golden Home Real Estate corporation subsidiary in Cairo. His research focuses on entrepreneurship, in particular the methods in which it is being taught in classrooms, as well as new business ventures and international entrepreneurship.

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.

# Part III Design, Didactical Approaches, and Pedagogy of Entrepreneurship Education

# Design Thinking Within Entrepreneurship Education: Different Perspectives and Common Themes in the Literature

Hannah Laura Schneider, Louisa Huxtable-Thomas, Paul Jones, Robert Bowen, and Nils Högsdal

Abstract Design thinking (DT) has been claimed to hold promise for bringing education into the twenty-first century. Many entrepreneurship educators are increasingly integrating DT into their entrepreneurship curricula. Thus, there has been a growing interest among entrepreneurial educators to understand the value and the conceptual interface of DT within entrepreneurship education (EE). The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to illustrate the interface of DT within EE and its current discussion within the literature. This explorative literature review follows an interpretive approach to discuss general theoretical parallels and common core principles of DT in EE at different levels. The findings of this literature review contribute to a more profound perspective on the conceptual clarity of DT in EE.

Keywords Entrepreneurship education · Design thinking · Literature review · Entrepreneurial education

# 1 Introduction

Entrepreneurship education (EE) is considered to be one of the pioneering fields in the implementation of design thinking (DT) (Sarooghi et al., 2019). Over the last years, DT has emerged in a variety of educational contexts of entrepreneurship, including in the context of the EntreComp framework (Bacigalupo et al., 2020; Campbell, 2019). Recent developments have influenced the increasing use of DT in

H. L. Schneider (✉) · N. Högsdal

L. Huxtable-Thomas · P. Jones

School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
R. Bowen Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Entrepreneurship Education, Stuttgart Media University, Stuttgart, Germany e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><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\_17

EE curricula, as Bacigalupo et al. (2020) describe DT as one of the three most important entrepreneurial methods. Recent research has demonstrated the wide application of DT in entrepreneurial contexts (Klenner et al., 2021) as well as among entrepreneurship educators (Kremel & Wetter Edman, 2019) and confirmed that DT is integrated into more than half of the entrepreneurship curricula (54%) (Sarooghi et al., 2019).

Despite the wide popularity and application that design thinking has gained in EE practice (Neck & Greene, 2011), the interface of DT within EE has not been discussed sufficiently in academia (Huber & Sailer, 2016; von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013) and DT has been overlooked by EE research. Moreover, especially, entrepreneurship educators have been characterised as lacking criticality (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Fayolle & Gailly, 2015) and jumping into new methods for teaching without questioning (Blenker et al., 2019). Thus, there appears to be currently no consensus on the level at which the interface of DT/EE occurs. While some present DT as an entrepreneurial method that can be used as a toolbox for entrepreneurship educators, others argue for using DT to design entrepreneurship education (EE) in general (Huq & Gilbert, 2017; Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). Design-based curricula and DT are one way to address the growing need for contemporary higher education. Indeed, future generations need to be equipped with DT skills to face uncertainties and address problems with a creative lens (Goldsby et al., 2017; Sarooghi et al., 2019). Therefore, there is a clear need for increased clarity across the range of entrepreneurial methods in order to improve existing EE practices (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020). Crucially, the application of DT in EE is under-researched, and the underlying interface has not been constructed yet. Thus, the synthesis of common themes and unifying logic and the investigation of common theoretical groundings help stimulate theoretical sensitivity towards the concept of DT in the EE context.

The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to illustrate the interface of DT within EE and its current discussion within the literature. This explorative literature review employs an interpretive approach to discuss the general theoretical parallels and common core principles of DT in EE at different levels. The review contributes to a more profound perspective contributing to the conceptual clarity of the DT/EE nexus. Its findings provide new insights into whether DT is just temporary or whether the integration of DT within EE is substantial. Finally, this chapter helps bring convergence to a common understanding of the value of DT for EE in order to inform future EE practices.

### 2 A Review of Design Thinking as It Pertains to Education

### 2.1 Design Thinking Within the Academic Discussion

Although the term "design thinking" did not exist yet, researchers have been investigating the designer's thinking process for the past 50 years (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Henriksen & Richardson, 2017; Simon, 1996). Today, a myriad of

Fig. 1 Design thinking definitions structured in three categories derived from Brenner et al. (2016; Sarooghi et al., 2019)

definitions of the term "design thinking" proliferate in academic and practitioneroriented literature and demonstrate the different perspectives taken on DT. Recent contributions have been made to explore and structure DT discourses. As an example, Johansson-Sköldberg et al. (2013) differentiate between three different perspectives: DT as a way of working with innovation (Brown, 2008), DT as a necessary skill that managers should adapt to solve organisational problems (Huq & Gilbert, 2017) and DT as part of the management theory (Boland & Collopy, 2004). In the same vein, Hassi and Laakso (2011) describe that DT within the managerial realm consists of three elements: a set of practices, a cognitive approach and a mindset. From a managerial perspective, Dell'Era et al. (2020) have recently identified four different interpretations of the DT paradigm characterised by different practices: creative problem-solving, sprint execution, creative confidence and innovation of meaning. Within the EE context, Sarooghi et al. in 2019 (Sarooghi et al., 2019) categorised the different definitions of DT into three different categories based on Brenner et al. (2016): mindset, process and tools (see Fig. 1). This logic of a pedagogical pyramid reflects the different stages of DT within EE (Huber & Sailer, 2016).

Figure 1 demonstrates the significant diversity in the definitions of DT. This diversity reflects the richness of the concept and the different perspectives on it. Within this paper, Sarooghi et al.'s (2019) classification of DT is further applied. Although DT is a fragmented term with very different complex definitions, common themes emerge. In particular, DT has been conceptualised through themes such as wicked problems/problem-solving, empathy and human-centredness, tangibility and prototyping and interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teams.

The first theme characterising DT is "wicked problems/problem-solving". Because DT is often treated as a problem-solving approach, the idea of problems being "wicked" is essential to the concept of DT (Neck & Greene, 2011). This idea emphasises problem understanding as an important part in the design process—by that it is essential to structure, shape and understand the problem first instead of just identifying it and then to work towards the solution (Christensen, 2009; Neck & Greene, 2011). Rittel and Weber (1973) suggest that wicked problems are endless in a way that there is never a definite end to the problem-solving process, and as there is no definite solution to a problem, the solution can be only good or bad, or better or worse, but never correct. The idea of wicked problems comes with a special approach or "attitude" towards the problem-solving process (Boland & Collopy, 2004).

Thus, one element of DT is the approach to solving problems in a "humancentred" way, as illustrated in the next section. In contrast to a technology- or organisation-oriented approach, DT puts the human (needs) at the centre of the innovative problem-solving process (Kimbell, 2012). By putting people first, design thinkers show the ability of empathy to draw upon people's real experiences and better understand their physical and emotional needs. Empathic design thinkers can, therefore, perceive the world from different perspectives and identify needs that inspire innovation (Blenker et al., 2019; Kimbell, 2012). Therefore, empathy is a centrepiece in defining DT as a human-centred approach to problem-solving (Blenker et al., 2019). In order to solve problems in a human-centred way, the next theme, "prototyping and tangibility", plays an essential role in getting useful user feedback—and beyond.

DT embraces prototyping to develop and test an idea and obtain useful user feedback as stated by Brown (Brown, 2008): "The goal of prototyping isn't to finish. It is to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the idea and to identify new directions that further prototypes might take" (Brown, 2008, p.87). Prototyping, at its core, is about transferring ideas and explorations from a conceptual world towards a physical prototype. By this, prototyping is also a way to build a coherent convergence of different ideas, making it more tangible not only to the potential user but also internally to the project team itself (Brown, 2008). Regarding the fact that DT is often used to solve "wicked problems", prototyping is a fitting method to approach a solution. "Wicked problems demand an opportunity-driven approach: they require making decisions, doing experiments, launching pilot programmes, testing prototypes, and so on" (Christensen, 2009, p. 20). Furthermore, the prototype (which can be a physical object but does not have to) can be seen as a constitution of a shared language and a way to communicate the idea (Brown, 2008) as well as inspire some further ideation (Sarasvathy et al., 2008). As described in the process models associated with DT, prototyping is included in most of the DT processes (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Brown, 2008). However, the idea of prototyping within design testing goes further than just "testing" and making things tangible. Prototyping in DT is not only used as a method, tool or step in the process; it also can be seen as an attitude or mentality within this context. In addition, Kelley's definition of prototyping as "thinking with your hands" characterises prototyping as a thinking mode.

DT embraces the doing and fosters an attitude of experimentation (Brown, 2008; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011), especially in multidisciplinary teams. Thus, the next theme has been identified as "interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary teams" as an important element of DT. Building upon the idea of DT to be human-centred, the use of different perspectives is also represented in the ideal DT team, which is multidisciplinary, highly collaborative and not hierarchically structured (Brown, 2008). By this, diverse perspectives are represented internally by a project team with different backgrounds—and beyond by also including specialists' views and outside perspectives (Huq & Gilbert, 2017). This is a recurring theme in the DT literature (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013) especially if DT is presented as a method for innovation (Brown, 2008). The last theme introduced in this paper focuses on "curiosity and creative confidence" as an important element of DT. Creativity plays a key role in the design process (Neck & Greene, 2011; Owen, 2007). In the popular literature, DT is often misunderstood in a way that any creative activity is labelled as DT (Henriksen & Richardson, 2017). Nevertheless, an optimistic, proactive and curious approach to creativity is a key principle of DT in a way that DT is driven by the desire to change things for the better (Henriksen & Richardson, 2017; Owen, 2007). Along with this comes the idea of "creative confidence"; in order to approach "wicked problems", design thinkers are required to be confident and optimistic about their own ability for creative problem-solving (Christensen, 2009). This section summarises the concept of DT in general, while the next section sheds further light on DT within the educational context.

### 2.2 Design Thinking Within an Educational Context

The world is evolving at a faster pace, and education must evolve with it. However, some argue that traditional ways of learning are unable to keep the pace. This demands a new culture of learning that focuses on learning within the world as opposed to teaching about the world. One way to create this culture is to integrate DT into education, as some believe that DT holds major promise in bringing education into the twenty-first century (Melles et al., 2012).

Figure 2 illustrates the different perspectives on a design thinking integration within education. In a similar logic as the design thinking definitions (toolkit/ process/mindset) as Fig. 1 and inspired by Huber and Sailer (2016), it illustrates DT within the educational context—as a toolkit for educators, as a course or as a teaching approach. Thus, it reflects the incorporation of DT in education as described by Melles et al., as a course logic, as a course unit, as a seminar or, at its highest level, as an approach to education general philosophy (Melles et al., 2012). Additionally, DT education can be delivered in a design education context (design schools) and other schools, which aim to integrate DT in a non-design context.

Fig. 2 Different perspectives/levels of DT integration in education, own figure based on (Melles et al., 2012)

While DT can provide a relevant toolkit of methods for educators, it can also aim for a whole new perspective on education. For example, researchers have proposed that the application of DT into business education can address issues and criticisms in business education. The current system of business schools has been criticised because of what is taught, how and to whom it is taught (Huq & Gilbert, 2017). This is not only relevant for business education, as application of DT in the educational context has already spread through many different disciplines (Beaird et al., 2018).

On its basic level, DT tools and methods can be applied in education such as integrating project work using the DT process and methodology and applying DT principles such as prototyping, testing and working in interdisciplinary teams. By this, DT in education will help to "design learning that enables students to work in multidisciplinary teams and enact positive, design-led change in the world" (Rauth et al., 2010, p. 2). Moreover, Rauth et al. (2010) reflected on DT as a learning model and "as a metadisciplinary concept and education model" (Rauth et al., 2010, p.1). Above this, DT can be perceived as a creative approach to education that promotes the idea of teachers as designers.

Besides structuring the level of DT integration in education (Fig. 2), DT education itself can be classified around the following themes and aspects: first, iteration and learning cycles are one important theme in DT education. The idea of iterative cycles switching between divergent and convergent thinking modes is key to DT and thus "Design Thinking education, therefore, addresses dealing with these cycles from the beginning on: The procedure of learning and the creation of knowledge within design thinking education are based on highly iterative proceedings" (Rauth et al., 2010, p.2). In this case, Rauth et al. (2010) see an analogy between the iterative character of DT and the experiential learning theory (and its famous learning cycle) by Kolb. Along with this theme comes the idea of prototyping as a new way of thinking about education. Unlike common educational practices, where the "thinking about things" and the "doing things" are separate, the prototyping mindset of DT connects both (Henriksen & Richardson, 2017). Furthermore, learning in the DT literature is often described as learning by doing. Therefore, project work and experiential learning play an integral role in DT education. The idea of learning by doing was first introduced by Dewey (1938) as a theory of education, within which learning should be practical rather than theoretical. Rooted in this, educational research has developed this idea into a pedagogical approach called "project-based learning". The design pedagogy is often based on the so-called studio learning, which basically describes that the students work on concrete projects and by that learn design principles (such as space, form and colour) in an integrated way "on the go" (Welsh & Dehler, 2013). These principles are consistent with the ideas of project-based learning and can be considered as a learner-centred pedagogy that proposes a collaborative, hands-on and active exploration of (real-world) projectbased challenges (Gordon, 2013). Project-based learning is more than just the inclusion of a project—the project is a central part of the curriculum, though. This student-centred approach allows students to decide on their path to work on the project, where the project will lead them and what the outcome might be—while the role of the teacher is rather supportive (Gordon, 2013). Although most DT curricula include a mixture of readings and project work, the work on the projects is very important (Melles et al., 2012). In the literature, this is also known as authentic learning, when students are asked to apply the curricular knowledge to an issue related to everyday life (Reeves et al., 2002). Simon (1996) describes that DT education focuses on the use of artificial, tangible things such as boundary objects and prototyping (Welsh & Dehler, 2013).

The role of the student in education based on DT principles is active rather than passive. Students become creators of their own knowledge instead of recipients—in fact, learning in DT is a student-driven process (Welsh & Dehler, 2013). By applying DT principles, the students develop their own action paths as part of their learning experience. Due to the nature of design problems, the solution of a problem is not yet given, and therefore the students learn to find the solution by themselves. By this "contestability of any and all ideas (...) students become actively engaged in the construction knowledge" (Welsh & Dehler, 2013). This experience of learning based on DT principles enables students to move from passive recipients to critical and reflective individuals. Along with this comes the collaborative role of the educator. DT is a non-hierarchical discipline, and this principle of collaboration affects the role of educators in DT education. Therefore, educators "serve as collaborators, co-learners, and mentors rather than authoritative figures dispensing factual information" (Welsh & Dehler, 2013, p. 778). DT employs the ideas of critical pedagogy, where power in the classroom is decentralised. Welsh and Dehler (2013) described that in a student-driven course design, facilitators conduct "desk reviews" when difficulties arise. In these desk reviews, the teaching team approaches the group to review their progress and give guidelines rather than judgement. Generally, the role of the teacher in this context can be described as rather passive mentoring than actively advising as it is one important point of design education to let the students maintain ownership of their idea/project.

Furthermore, in DT as a discipline, a studio-like learning environment or learning space plays a crucial role in design education. Designers and design thinkers often work in design studios that are typically open, highly collaborative spaces with different sources of inspiration. The room setup is a crucial part of a successful DT project, and the space should represent the principles of DT (collaboration, prototyping and creativity). The importance of a studio setup that meets students' needs is also evident in educational settings. The creation of the physical environment highlights the similarities and common themes between DT and experiential learning (Huber & Sailer, 2016; Welsh & Dehler, 2013). This section offers an overview of DT within an educational context, while the perspective of DT in EE is further illuminated in the following section.

### 3 Perspectives and Themes on the DT/EE Nexus

Since this chapter focuses on further conceptualising the interface of DT and EE, this section examines the existing literature in this field and gives an overview of the recurring themes. Several developments have resulted in a greater focus on conceptual links between DT and EE, as well as on entrepreneurship practice, entrepreneurship research and entrepreneurship pedagogy (Sarooghi et al., 2019). Research conducted on the interface of creativity and business illustrated analogue characteristics of designers and entrepreneurs such as experiential learning, mindsets and non-linearity (Penaluna & Penaluna, 2009). Recently, researchers have described the entrepreneurial ways of designing and designerly ways of entrepreneuring (Klenner et al., 2021). Developments such as the effectuation theory by Sarasvathy (2001), which heavily uses DT principles in its study of the entrepreneurial decision logic, as well as the lean startup approach, have contributed to the increasing use of a DT philosophy in EE curricula (Sarooghi et al., 2019). Dorst (2011) refers back to the terms "entrepreneuring" and "effectuation" when describing the process of creating new frames for problem-solving in design.

Clearly, the concept of DT shows parallels to the current debate on how to design and teach EE (Huber & Sailer, 2016). Despite the wide popularity and application of DT in the entrepreneurship practice, the interface of entrepreneurship and DT has not been discussed sufficiently in academia (von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013). While this research gap still exists, there are some publications contributing to the EE and DT nexus. These publications either present a conceptual model for the interface (Nielsen & Stovang, 2015; Sarooghi et al., 2019; von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013), compare different entrepreneurial methods (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020) or focus on describing a case study of the utilisation of DT in entrepreneurship course design (Gordon, 2013; Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). In order to bridge this research gap, common themes and a conceptualisation of the interface are illustrated in the following section.

### 4 Conceptualisation: Levels of Interface

# 4.1 Conceptual Interface: Common Themes of Entrepreneurship Education and DT

The conceptual nexus of both shows parallels in their core ideas and thinking modes of being human/problem centred, iterative and value creation oriented. Indeed, the boundaries between the disciplines are blurring as design is shifting towards a selfunderstanding beyond the pure design context and entrepreneurship transforming from a narrow management perspective towards a more holistic self-conception. Entrepreneurs can be seen as the designers of organisations who also design the world we live in (Sarasvathy et al., 2008). Thus, Mansoori describes the new perspective on entrepreneurship (as a domain that is "intentional, systematic, strategic and guided" (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020, p.21)) as a perspective that has great commonalities with design science. In this section, the conceptual nexus and common themes identified within the literature are illustrated.

First of all, Sarasvathy and Vankataram (2011) described the scientific method as an analogue to the entrepreneurial method. The same has been applied to design attitude vs. scientific attitude (Owen, 2007). This way of thinking embraces the divergent thinking mode which is further expounded by Boland and Collopy (2004) who distinguish between a design and a decision attitude. While the decision attitude perceives problems as stable, the design attitude approaches a problem with the creation of new opportunities (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Huq & Gilbert, 2017). Further, Sarasvathy et al. "posit effectuation as an entrepreneurial logic for designing artifacts (...)" (Sarasvathy et al., 2008, p. 331). When comparing the effectuation logic (Sarasvathy, 2001) with the DT process model of the Double Diamond (Design Council, 2005), both concepts endorse the divergent thinking mode in the context of making opportunities by creative discovery (Sarasvathy et al., 2008).

Second, DT and EE show a high conceptual overlap as both emphasise valueorientation and creation with limited resources. This aspect has been described best by Simon saying "everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones" (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020, p. 111). This emphasis on value creation is represented in EE by the understanding of entrepreneurial action as the making of a positive difference (Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011). Both concepts embrace value creation for other stakeholders (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020; Sarasvathy et al., 2008). Similar to designers, entrepreneurs also use certain methodologies to solve complex problems and realise their aspired ideas in a process of world-making (Klenner et al., 2021; Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020). Further, both disciplines mention

Fig. 3 Conceptualisation of the interface and core principles

the innovation and value creation process within the context of limited resources and an uncertain environment. Both in DT and in EE, problems are "wicked", and therefore, the iterative problem-solving process relies on the subjective facilitation of individuals' decisions (Klenner et al., 2021; Sarasvathy et al., 2008). Iteration is a core principle of all formalised DT process models (Brown, 2008; Design Council, 2005; Neck & Greene, 2011). Accordingly, Mansoori compares the nature of the entrepreneurial problem space with design: "As such, akin to domains such as design, entrepreneurship should be guided by rules, principles, heuristics and methods that are distinct and suitable for solving structured and ill-structured aspects" (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020, p. 24) (Fig. 3).

### 4.2 Educational Interface of DT and EE

The interface between DT and EE shows a high level of overlap regarding their general educational philosophy, their similar understanding as a key competence and their actual teaching methods and pedagogical approach regarding the role of educators and students. First, reflecting on the evolution of both, DT and EE both have shifted from a rather specialist view towards a more generic understanding as a key competence that is relevant to everyone. While DT moved the idea of designerly thinking towards describing a way of thinking and doing beyond the design context (Henriksen & Richardson, 2017; Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013), EE shifted its view from narrow to a wider and more holistic understanding as a way of thinking (Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011). This shifting might be because both claim to transfer key competencies for the twenty-first-century learner such as the ability to solve open and complex problems in a creative and innovative way. Through this, both disciplines became relevant to "everyone", and today both argue to be important beyond their traditional field of practice. DT has emancipated and freed the designerly way of thinking from being only relevant to designers, while EE is in the middle of a process of teaching entrepreneurship across disciplines (Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011). At this point, EE and DT have a unified mission and can play an integral role in a possible new way of understanding education in general. Further, regarding the underlying educational philosophies, DT and EE both build upon the influences of constructivism such as experiential learning, critical pedagogy and active learning (Dewey, 1938; Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Neck & Greene, 2011). Concerning the actual use of teaching methods, one of the recurring themes is the focus on project-based learning. Most DT curricula make use of project work on real-life cases (Henriksen & Richardson, 2017), and the engagement in real-life opportunities is also shown in EE (Pittaway & Edwards, 2012). Both concepts demonstrate a high level of "doing" in the experience of education by teaching the subject through the creation of experiences in practice (Neck & Greene, 2011). Moreover, both EE and DT embrace the use of continuous and iterative learning cycles by making feedback from others an integral part of the learning process (Rauth et al., 2010).

### 5 Conclusion and Further Research

This chapter questions whether the integration of DT within EE is temporary or a substantial contribution to pedagogy. It is no coincidence that EE "has been one of the pioneering fields in the implementation of design thinking" (Sarooghi et al., 2019). The literature review has illustrated substantial common themes and core principles in both conceptual and educational dimensions. This reinforces the fit of DT as a possible permanent addition to EE (Sarooghi et al., 2019). An investigation of DT has provided more theoretical sensitivity around the concept by illuminating three different perspectives: tool, process or mindset view (Sarooghi et al., 2019). This richness of the concept is also represented in education at the level of the course, toolkit and educational approach.

Regarding the conceptual and educational nexus, this paper has identified common principles at the DT/EE nexus: iterative learning cycles (Rauth et al., 2010), project-based learning in the sense of experiential learning (Linton & Klinton, 2019) and learning as a student-driven process with the teacher in the role of a collaborator (Neck & Greene, 2011). While DT and EE have similar core values of educating discovery processes and creation of innovation, the boundaries between both even blur more recently, due to the conceptual shift of EE from venture creation towards a value creation focus. The current state of the art is divided into two modes: discussing conceptual models for the interface (Nielsen & Stovang, 2015; Sarooghi et al., 2019; von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013) or describing case studies of the utilisation of DT in entrepreneurship course design (Linton & Klinton, 2019; Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). Single case studies and studies of exemplary course design are the most numerous (Huber & Sailer, 2016; Kremel & Wetter Edman, 2019; Linton & Klinton, 2019). While it is apparent that there have been valuable contributions to the field discussing DT within EE from different perspectives, this paper contributes to the recent debate by illustrating a more profound perspective on the EE/DT nexus and providing further insights for conceptual clarity.

These findings call for more research as current research focuses on analysing single case studies without a curricular or comparative analysis. Most case studies also provide relevant insights for practitioners on how to include DT in the EE curriculum, but their conclusions often rely on single examples and have not been tested in a wider context (Huber & Sailer, 2016; Linton & Klinton, 2019; Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). Also, there is a need for an understanding of the current implementation of DT in EE practice (Sarooghi et al., 2019). Recent research has answered the question of whether entrepreneurship educators are integrating DT into their curricula. Also, recent research has applied a survey-based approach in order to demonstrate the application of DT among entrepreneurship educators, and the current state proves that entrepreneurship educators are indeed using DT frameworks (Kremel & Wetter Edman, 2019; Sarooghi et al., 2019). However, as this review has shown, the existing variety of DT definitions and myriad perspectives calls for a more detailed and deeper examination of DT integration. Therefore, the questions need to be raised on how, why and from which perspective (tool, process, mindset/course, toolset, approach) entrepreneurship educators make use of DT. Further research is needed to bring convergence to a common understanding of the value of DT for EE.

### References

Design Council (2005) A Study of the design process.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Hannah Laura Schneider is a passionate entrepreneurship educator, driving the entrepreneurial spirit at Stuttgart Media University and researching design thinking within entrepreneurship education at Swansea University. She co-initiated the Network for Entrepreneurship @Hochschulen BW and is a programme curator of the International Entrepreneurship Education Summit (IEES).

Dr. 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.

Prof. Paul Jones is professor of entrepreneurship and innovation and head of school at the School of Management, Swansea University. Professor Jones is the editor in chief of the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, an associate editor with The International Journal of Management Education and a senior editor with Information Technology and People. Prof Jones is also the editor of the Emerald book series Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research. He undertakes research into entrepreneurial behaviour and small business management. Dr. Robert Bowen is an International Entrepreneurship academic at Cardiff University and has previously held academic positions at Swansea University and Aberystwyth University, in Wales, and the University of Nantes in France. He also currently holds a position of visiting professor at Audencia Business School in Nantes, France. Dr. Bowen has published in a range of international journals and presented his research at the Welsh Parliament, House of Lords and European Commission. He currently holds positions of co-chair of the Rural Enterprise track at the annual ISBE (Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship) conference and editor of Regions, an online publication of the Regional Studies Association.

Prof. Dr. Nils Högsdal is teaching corporate finance and entrepreneurship at Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart (Stuttgart Media University). He is active in the both the scientific discipline of entrepreneurship and the real startup community. He is an active entrepreneurship researcher and educator, inviting the community every year to the International Entrepreneurship Education Summit.

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.

# Entrepreneurship Education in Digital Environments: Developing a Didactic Framework for a New Era

Ronny Baierl and René Thamm

Abstract This chapter introduces a new didactic framework on entrepreneurship education in digital environments. We base our arguments on theoretical insights gained by the literature on didactics in general and on entrepreneurship education in particular. In addition, we include practical experiences gained by two successfully delivered summer schools, in the real world and in the digital world, and our expertise based on lectures at our university. As a result, our framework covers five dimensions in which several aspects of digital and nondigital competencies are trained. We discuss our framework and suggest fruitful avenues for educators and researchers in the field.

Keywords Digital and nondigital competencies · Hybrid teaching · Hybrid learning · Team collaboration · Role models · Simulation

# 1 Introduction to Entrepreneurship Education

The impact and need for entrepreneurship education at higher education institutions are still an important part in academic discussions. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention represents one of the key issues here. This relationship is affected by several factors. Within that chapter we follow the established perception that entrepreneurs are made, not born (Gorman et al., 1997; Ernst & Young, 2011), and that entrepreneurship programmes generate a positive impact (Galloway & Brown, 2002; Nabi et al., 2017; Li & Wu, 2019; Wei et al., 2019; Boubker et al., 2021).

R. Baierl (✉) · R. Thamm

© The Author(s) 2023

Faculty of Business Administration, Dresden University of Applied Sciences, Dresden, Germany

e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS><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\_18

Recent data provided by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor underline the rising number of entrepreneurship professorships reflecting an increasing relevance in Germany. The results also show that participants still perceive their preparation for successful business creation and their required capabilities to be at a relatively low level (Bosma et al., 2021; Sternberg et al., 2021). This finding calls for continuous improvements in the field of entrepreneurship education. Especially from an international perspective, the way entrepreneurship is taught differs across universities to a great extent (Fayolle & Klandt, 2006). Even though applied or 'hands-on' teaching methods promise more effective teaching (Gorman et al., 1997; Edelman et al., 2008), classical lecturing is still a common method. As an example, while entrepreneurship research clearly points out the moderate value of written business plans, seminars on 'how to write a convincing business plan' are still incorporated in many university programmes.

Although entrepreneurship education has manifold facets, educational programmes unite the intention not only to teach management tools but also to form personalities and promote entrepreneurial attitudes (Fretschner & Weber, 2013; Kuckertz, 2013). Thus, entrepreneurship education should support entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial intention as the best predictor of subsequent behaviour.

Our work is a further addition to the development of a holistic entrepreneurship education approach. For doing so, recent literature considers different perspectives (Maritz & Brown, 2013; Fayolle, 2013; Klapper & Neergaard, 2017): for example, 'why' looks at the goals and objectives of the programme. 'What' discusses the needed content to improve entrepreneurial competencies, and 'how' deals with the used didactic methods. Furthermore, among other perspectives, the programme has to be tailored to the target audience ('for whom') and take the place of learning and teaching ('where') into account. Within that chapter we focus on 'where' and 'how':

This chapters describes the five dimensions of our developed teaching approach and evaluates their impact on digital and nondigital competencies from our perspective. The introduced approach is a result of analysing international research. Moreover, we included the experiences and students' feedback from a summer school with the German Jordanian University that took place prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, from virtual joint teaching with students from the same university and our university in 2020 and from planning joint hybrid teaching in 2021.

# 2 Digital and Nondigital Competencies for a New Framework

The desired outcome of our teaching approach is aligned with the future skills framework developed by the Stifterverband in collaboration with McKinsey & Company (Kirchherr et al., 2019). This framework aims to outline the needed abilities for tomorrow's world of work. The suggested set of core competencies can be distinguished into technical, digital and nondigital skills. We explicitly respect nondigital skills that cover a wide range of what is well known as the entrepreneurial mindset (Bacigalupo et al., 2016), including problem-solving, creativity, entrepreneurial action, self-initiative, adaptability and perseverance.

In complement, digital skills should receive more attention, as acting confidently in digital environments is crucial for entrepreneurs. These skills include the competence of digital knowledge acquisition (digital learning) and the ability to work effectively and agilely in virtual teams (digital collaboration and agile work) by utilizing adequate communications (digital interaction). In addition, digital literacy reflects the increasing relevance of safety rules and data protection. Digital ethics stands for a critical analysis of one's own digital activity (Kirchherr et al., 2019).

At its core, our framework consists of five dimensions and follows an applied and 'hands-on' didactical approach (Kuckertz, 2013). As 'doing is better than learning', we focus on realizing own entrepreneurial projects that affect the knowledge and entrepreneurial motivation of students. The following sections describe the main idea of each dimension and discuss the effects on digital and nondigital skills.

### 2.1 Dimension 1: Hybrid Teaching

From the very beginning, our summer school was built up on various teaching approaches. Considering the different knowledge bases of our audience, we combined passive and active teaching elements. Thus, the curriculum includes keynote speeches to inform students about recent entrepreneurship methods and tools from textbook-based theories and models (Gassmann et al., 2020; da Rin & Hellmann, 2020). Simultaneously, every theoretical input was expanded with appropriate exercises. From our perspective, students should be guided step by step to enable them to develop a business idea (e.g. design-thinking methods), describe their business model (e.g. business model canvas) and understand the financial consequences of its implementation (e.g. financial planning). In addition, to ensure active participation and simulate real-life experiences, we used a business simulation (see Sect. 2.5) as the second part of our summer school.

In 2019, when the summer school took place for the first time in Amman, we ran the whole curriculum face-to-face. One year later, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to completely shift to a distance learning approach. Encouraged by empirical results indicating similar learning outcomes from face-to-face vs. distance learning

Fig. 1 Consequences of hybrid teaching

(Means et al., 2013), we took the opportunity to adjust our teaching focus by including the development of digital skills. First, the keynote speeches were recorded and made available in an online library. Additionally, we motivated our students to search for more information in digital databases and pointed to the reliability of sources. Second, weekly video conferences were established to provide a platform for coaching, feedback and explaining the forthcoming tasks. Third, guest speakers were invited to join the conferences, and business idea pitches were performed online (see Sect. 2.4).

Online teaching of the entrepreneurial mindset is challenging (Liguori & Winkler, 2020). Fortunately, the utilized simulation is cloud-based and, thus, very appropriate for distance learning. Nevertheless, creating an active, constructive, and collaborative online learning environment is challenging. Our experience shows that success mainly depends on the previous digital experiences of students. In entrepreneurship education programmes, E-learning elements may provide an extra advantage to support self-determined acting. Nevertheless, undergraduate students may especially suffer from overtraining. Therefore, we recommend either choosing a blended learning approach or offering a complementary course of basic digital working skills in advance. As a result, especially, digital learning and self-initiative benefit from this approach in our understanding as shown in Fig. 1.

### 2.2 Dimension 2: Intercultural Team Collaboration

'[T]he "entrepreneur" in entrepreneurship is more likely to be plural, rather than singular' (Gartner et al., 1994). In addition to the high popularity of that quote by Gartner and colleagues, the implication for entrepreneurship education is as concise as the quote itself: entrepreneurship must be taught in teams. Consequently, we included the advantages of team cooperation in our framework, as do many educators do (Li & Wu, 2019). In addition, we included intercultural aspects by composing teams of students from different cultural backgrounds and geographical origins (Stefanic et al., 2020).

Despite the numerous advantages of such an intercultural approach in terms of the intercultural competences acquired by participating students, geographic distance is of great importance to our framework, as it forces participants to communicate in

Fig. 2 Consequences of intercultural team collaboration

digital rather than in real rooms. As we have learned in prior projects, students typically prefer real appointments instead of virtual appointments when they live close to each other. As a concrete (pre-COVID-19) example, students living in the same town but studying at different universities rejected the use of virtual meetings. Instead, they preferred to meet each other at one of the participating universities or at common leisure meeting points (Clauss et al., 2020).

Entrepreneurship educators often discuss how team composition should be organized: self-combined teams may benefit from interpersonal advantages, while randomly selected team members typically show greater heterogeneity that is clearly beneficial in entrepreneurial contexts. Despite the obvious advantages of selfselected team membership in other contexts, we decided to follow a team composition approach in which team members are selected by educators (Mannix & Neale, 2005).

We decided to include the concept of diversity fault lines as it acknowledges the multivariate nature of diversity. Thus, we focused on origin and gender as the two most prominent variables describing our students (in fact, age and experience were very homogeneously distributed). Except for these two variables, team composition was random. In other words, we composed the teams in such a way that female and male students were mixed; the same held true for the origin (German and Jordanian) of the participating students and especially for the combination of both variables. In the understanding of diversity fault lines, we avoided situations in which, for example, two German male students belonged to a team with two Jordanian female students; as such a team would obviously generate strong diversity fault lines (Thatcher et al., 2003). As a result, digital interaction and virtual collaboration on one side and problem-solving, entrepreneurial action and perseverance on the other side benefit from such a setting in our understanding as shown in Fig. 2.

### 2.3 Dimension 3: Hybrid Learning

Based on our hybrid teaching approach discussed in Sect. 2.1, we included a second dimension of hybrid environments in our framework: hybrid learning accounts for the students' perspective and, thus, complements the hybrid teaching perspective in a

Fig. 3 Consequences of hybrid learning

holistic understanding. To do so, we offered a rich spectrum of available tools and online platforms to our students.

First, we utilized generalistic platforms, including a self-developed learning platform that is used by Saxonian universities, online whiteboards and team collaboration software, as well as general communication platforms. Our experience shows that students prefer the learning environment that is typically used at their universities. If two (or even more) universities collaborate, focusing on established and easyto-use platforms is advisable to prevent students' rejection. Within such platforms, several tools can typically be implemented for virtual collaboration. As students prefer different tools, the participants themselves should make the exact selections. In other words, forcing students to use a specific tool is not advisable, as it can lead to unintended refusal.

This is especially true in regard to communication: in our case, students automatically switched to a free-of-charge messenger service that is used by more than 2 billion people in over 180 countries instead of using the communication tools available in our learning platform. In addition to (negative) consequences in terms of not collectable learning analytics, aspects of digital ethics should be faced. In fact, we see a great potential for sensitizing students regarding aspects of data privacy and secure data transport. This is especially important in international settings, as national regulations and experienced usage may differ dramatically.

Second, we included an entrepreneurship-specific platform (Huebscher & Lendner, 2010) for our simulation approach (see Sect. 2.5). As this platform is new to every participant, it is necessary to include a focused introduction to point out specific aspects, either online or offline. However, it is not necessary to include a detailed step-by-step tutorial for each and every functionality here. Based on our experience, students often get bored when showing functionalities in detail instead of delivering a comprehensive overview. By including this platform, digital competencies, especially in terms of digital self-confidence and self-reliance, are pronounced. As a consequence, hybrid learning environments especially support digital interaction and virtual collaboration and enable problem-solving and adaptability in our understanding as shown in Fig. 3.

### 2.4 Dimension 4: Entrepreneurial Role Models

Several studies emphasize the importance of confronting students with role models (Toledano & Urbano, 2008; BarNir et al., 2011; Mueller, 2011). Although family role models have outstanding relevance (Carr & Sequeira, 2007), additional role models promise positive effects. Thus, we invited entrepreneurs and small business managers not only as guest speakers but also as representatives of fictive investment companies during our pitch presentations. In other words, sharing their experiences is only one side of the coin. We aimed to stimulate communication with our students by involving these role models in the learning and assessment process. Additionally, we provided an informal forum for individual support, feedback and networking.

As perceived distance between students and role models may evolve negative effects, we explicitly considered age and a comparable personal history when choosing the role models (Kuckertz, 2013; Liu et al., 2019). To ensure the highest possible identification, alumni of involved universities are suitable contacts. Although sometimes a higher impact of success than failure stories is reported (Liu et al., 2019), we recommend the inclusion of both sides of the story to draw a realistic picture of entrepreneurial career paths (Abbasianchavari & Moritz, 2021).

Finally, lecturers play an important role. As coaches and facilitators, they accompany and navigate students through the entrepreneurial learning process, demonstrate openness to explore, test new frameworks and increase the awareness of entrepreneurship as a valuable carrier choice (Mueller, 2011; Rahman & Day, 2015). Integrated role models have a stronger effect on entrepreneurial desirability than on entrepreneurial feasibility (Fellnhofer & Puumalainen, 2017). Therefore, this dimension mainly contributes to self-initiative and entrepreneurial action in our understanding as shown in Fig. 4.

### 2.5 Dimension 5: Business Simulation

As already mentioned in Sect. 2.3, we utilized entrepreneurship-specific simulation software and, thus, added elements of gamification to our framework (Isabelle, 2020). Although several good and very good simulation tools are available at the market, we chose the software of a Germany-based, well-established provider of

Fig. 4 Consequences of entrepreneurial role models

Fig. 5 Consequences of business simulation

management simulations. The selected software is beneficial to our didactic framework in three dimensions.

First, the selected software combines a classic simulation approach with more entrepreneurial and creative aspects. In fact, the programme includes the well-known business model canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) within the first phase. Based on the entries within that framework and (fictive) negotiations with investors (see Sect. 2.4), the instructor of the simulation may manually change the simulation's settings. As an example, as innovativeness cannot be evaluated by software automatically, the instructor may evaluate the business model canvas in that dimension. In turn, she/he is allowed to change the innovation index, for example, by adding ten points. The same holds true for the amount of money invested and many other variables. While this procedure requests a well-trained instructor (in fact, participating in one of the provider's official trainings is advisable), the advantages are overwhelming: standard values for subsequent simulation can be adjusted in such a way that individual (either creative or entrepreneurial or financial) aspects are acknowledged (Topsim Startup, 2019).

Second, a business model canvas workshop represents a perfectly fitting starting point. Depending on the participants' prior knowledge, such a workshop can take place in real or in virtual rooms. Based on our experience, we advocate for a face-toface approach. During such a workshop, the newly composed team may benefit from real-world interactions, such as from the advantages of talking to each other in presence. Nevertheless, the business model canvas workshop can be virtualized if required.

Third, the subsequent simulation phase closely corresponds to traditional management simulations. In other words, this phase represents the transition from initiating the pre-start-up phase to managing the growth phase and, thus, accounts for organizational ambidexterity as a concept to utilize exploration and exploitation in parallel (O'Reilly III & Tushman, 2013). From our perspective, shortening that phase from six to four periods is advisable. As a result, especially, agile work and problem-solving benefit from that dimension in our understanding as shown in Fig. 5.

### 3 Summary of Digital and Nondigital Competencies

As shown above, each of the five dimensions of our didactic framework targets several aspects of digital and nondigital competencies. In summary, we aggregated the illustrated consequences in such a way that, in total, the maximal value of every competence is acknowledged. This procedure represents the compensable nature of actions on competencies. Figure 6 provides an overview of consequences.

In detail, the dimensions of our framework focus strongly on digital interaction and virtual collaboration. Digital literacy, agile work and digital learning are also targeted by our framework. As already mentioned in Sect. 2.3, aspects of digital ethics play only a minor role. In fact, when starting with our projects, we expected that, for example, digital information and their value would not truly play an important role in our setting. Nevertheless, we have learned that aspects of data security and accessibility are of great importance, especially in international contexts. Thus, we call for a better inclusion of this important digital competence in future projects.

On the other hand, the dimensions of our framework underline self-initiative, problem solving and adaptability. In fact, this is completely in line with our understanding of entrepreneurship education programmes. Additionally, entrepreneurial action and perseverance are supported by our framework. As we decided to include existing simulation software, creativity can be covered to only a limited extent. In fact, an important prerequisite for running managerial simulations is a common database. Therefore, the software used in our project offers the same background information and the same start-up environment to every participant (startup.topsim.com/en, 2023). Although all teams work on the same (fictive) startup, the generated results in terms of creativity are remarkable. Nevertheless, focusing on real start-ups and own innovations may be advantageous in other contexts.

This chapter was set out to deliver a didactic framework for entrepreneurship education practitioners. Therefore, the introduced approach helps entrepreneurship education practitioners develop their own entrepreneurship programmes – in a national or international context, as a curricula course or a comprehensive summer school or taught alone or with colleagues. Our results represent a valuable guideline to develop a best fitting programme for several circumstances instead of delivering a 'blueprint for the best entrepreneurship education programme'. In other words, its implications are mainly practical in nature. Nevertheless, researchers may benefit

Fig. 6 Overview of consequences

from our framework in two dimensions. First, the structure may be beneficial for subsequent research projects in the field. Second, the limitations of our approach deliver fruitful avenues for further research. Especially the subjective evaluation of the consequences in each dimension may benefit from a more rigorous way of measurement.

### References

Prof. Dr. Ronny Baierl is holder of the professorship of key qualifications and director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Education at the Dresden University of Applied Sciences (HTW Dresden). His research focuses on issues of innovation-oriented management and entrepreneurial thinking, decision-making and acting.

Prof. Dr. René Thamm is holder of the professorship of management control and sustainability accounting and dean of studies at the Dresden University of Applied Sciences (HTW Dresden). His research focuses on issues of entrepreneurial finance, valuation and management control.

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.

# Sport as a Vehicle for Entrepreneurship Education: Approaches and Future Directions

Louis Moustakas and Stephen Reynard

Abstract The use of sport and physical activity as a method of developing entrepreneurship is an area that has received considerable attention in recent years. This is evidenced, in part, by the proliferation of sport-based education manuals on entrepreneurship from development agencies, NGOs and business actors alike. Moreover, several organisations operate in the sport for development ecosystem that focuses on sport-based entrepreneurship and developing social businesses in and through sport, including Sport dans la Ville and the Yunus Sports Hub. These programmes and existing literature show different approaches to using sport and physical activity to promote entrepreneurship. These approaches raise specific questions that should be considered when implementing sport for entrepreneurship programmes. Combining findings from academic and practitioner literature as well as considerable experience in the field, this chapter will present three approaches to using sport to develop entrepreneurship and highlight critical questions and concerns related to each approach. These approaches include (1) using sport as a hook to attract youth to entrepreneurial education, (2) using sport activities to develop competences related to entrepreneurship and (3) providing specialised education and support to sport entrepreneurs. To conclude, we propose a number of recommendations on how to maximise the potential of using sport for entrepreneurship education and development.

Keywords Sport for development · Entrepreneurship education · Sport · Employability

L. Moustakas (✉)

Institute for European Sport Development and Leisure Studies, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 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\_19

S. Reynard Sport Coordination Unit, UNHCR, Geneva, Switzerland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
### 1 Introduction

Both at the national and international levels, there has been growing recognition from governments, NGOs and development organisations of the potential for sport to contribute to sustainable socio-economic development. Most significantly, the UN's Agenda 2030 explicitly recognise the potential of sport to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (Wespi et al., 2015). This recognition comes from two fronts. First, there is an understanding that sport provides a practical, physical and interactive setting that allows for experiential learning and the development of knowledge, attitudes and skills. Indeed, due to its widespread appeal as a "shared cultural manifestation", relatively low cost and interactive nature, sport has been presented as a vehicle to support development across a wide range of areas (Beutler, 2008; Cardenas, 2013). In particular, participation in sport-based social interventions or experience as an athlete has been connected to a wide range of attitudes or skills such as self-esteem, discipline, resilience, leadership, decision-making or teamwork (Moustakas & Kalina, 2021; Steinbrink et al., 2020; Weiss et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2022).

Second, the sport industry presents significant potential for economic growth and development. It is one of the fastest-growing industries globally, encompasses a broad range of sub-sectors and connects to several other industries (Ratten, 2018). Worldwide, the sport industry is valued at over 500 billion USD (The Business Research Company, 2020), and many countries, such as Indonesia or Botswana, have identified sport as a prime area for economic diversification and growth (Moustakas & Işık, 2020; Putri & Moustakas, 2022). As such, business literature highlights the need for entrepreneurship to support the overall growth and development of the sport sector itself (Ratten, 2018).

Likewise, entrepreneurship is widely considered an essential engine of societal and economic growth (Gries & Naudé, 2010; Weiss et al., 2013). The United Nations (UN) recognises that entrepreneurship can contribute by "creating jobs and driving economic growth and innovation, fostering local economic development, improving social conditions and contributing to addressing environmental challenges". Given the importance of entrepreneurship as a vehicle for growth and the perceived developmental potential of sport, it is no surprise that a growing number of programmes have attempted to use sport as a vehicle to support entrepreneurial development and education in their communities. Numerous NGOs that work at the intersection of sport, social development and entrepreneurship have emerged. These include the likes of Sport dans la Ville, which combines practical sport activities, institutional networks and individual support to develop entrepreneurs across France (Entrepreneurs dans la ville, 2021). Elsewhere, the Yunus Sports Hub provides incubation, training and events to support socially oriented sport businesses (Yunus Sports Hub, 2021).

Correspondingly, numerous manuals and curricula have emerged to formalise the connections between sport and entrepreneurship and specifically outline how sport itself can be used as a driver of entrepreneurial education. These include manuals from business, civil society and governmental agencies alike, such as the Swiss Academy for Development (Wespi et al., 2015), Standard Chartered (Standard Chartered, 2020) or Kick for Life (Fleming & Braun, 2020). Broadly speaking, these manuals propose a variety of adapted games and sport activities that provide opportunities for experiential learning and support the development of several entrepreneurship-related life skills.

Yet, despite the growing connection between sport and entrepreneurship education, the nascent nature of this area leaves us with gaps in our knowledge and understanding, especially as it concerns the intersection between sport and entrepreneurship education outside of the higher education context. As other authors have noted, there is a need for more research around "how sport educators are effectively utilising entrepreneurship" (Ratten & Jones, 2018) and the "role sport entrepreneurship education plays in society" (Ratten & Thukral, 2020). In this chapter, we aim to contribute to these discussions by outlining three of the main approaches to entrepreneurship education in sport. In doing so, we hope to provide a basis for future research and development of approaches within sport entrepreneurship education.

The approaches we are documenting here are located outside the higher education sector and primarily engage youth as their primary target audience. As such, we are mapping a part of the widening "scope of entrepreneurship education" (Kuckertz, 2013). To do so, we will focus on the pedagogical and programmatic components of these approaches, their benefits and their challenges. In particular, we are informed by the teaching models presented by authors such as Fayolle and Gailly (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008) or, later, Maritz and Brown (Maritz & Brown, 2013), as well as the framework of entrepreneurship competencies developed by Lackeus (Lackéus, 2014) and the assessment types identified by Block and Stumpf (Block & Stumpf, 1990).

Though this chapter is discursive in nature, our findings and observations are supported by our extensive experience in the field, academic literature and programme materials. Moving forward, we will first present the three main approaches to entrepreneurship education in and through sport and briefly discuss the challenges and opportunities inherent to each. Afterwards, we will conclude by proposing some overarching recommendations regarding how practice and research can help maximise the potential of using sport for entrepreneurship education and development.

# 2 Approaches to Entrepreneurship Education in and Through Sport

There are subtle yet fundamental differences in terms of how organisations use sport to contribute to or promote entrepreneurship education. The following categorisation of approaches does not claim to be comprehensive, nor does it seek to promote one approach over the other. Rather, this categorisation aims to highlight the range of approaches that exist. The categories have been identified based on trends that we have observed through our involvement as researchers and practitioners in the field of sport for development (SFD). The first approach is attracting youth to entrepreneurial education through sport. The second is developing entrepreneurial skills through sport-based experiential learning activities. The third is providing specialised training for young people to become sport entrepreneurs. For each of the approaches, we provide an overview, including the context, objective(s), audience(s), assessment, content, pedagogies and outcomes, as well as the benefits and challenges of each approach.

# 2.1 Parallel Programming

Arguably the most intuitive and easy-to-understand approach, parallel programming uses sport's appeal to attract young people to entrepreneurial education. In this approach, a sport programme is made available to young people alongside an entrepreneurship education programme. Here, sport is essentially used as a "hook" in order to "use the momentum in and around sport as a strategic vehicle to communicate, implement, and achieve nonsport development goals" (Schulenkorf et al., 2016). This approach is relatively easy to establish within organisations as the need for specialised training is relatively low compared to the second and third approaches. In short, access to sport is provided, ideally supervised or taught by someone with a background in sport or physical education, in addition to entrepreneurship education. Through this, young people gain access to both entrepreneurship education and sport programming, both of which can significantly contribute to the holistic development of young people. This approach is also intuitive and, therefore, easy for funders and programme evaluators to understand. Further, this approach can help increase the accessibility and attractiveness of entrepreneurship, which can be especially valuable in contexts where high youth unemployment makes entrepreneurship or self-employment a necessity. Table 1 provides an overview for the model of parallel programming approaches.

The French NGO Sport dans la Ville provides a good example of this approach through its Entrepreneurs dans la Ville programme. From a programmatic perspective, the sport and entrepreneurship programmes are separate, but the sport programme is used as a hook to attract youth towards the entrepreneurship programme. The entrepreneurship programme itself lasts for 5 months and supports disadvantaged young people in setting up their own companies. To enter into the programme, prospective participants must first pitch their business ideas to Sport dans la Ville, and only a limited number of applicants are selected (Entrepreneurs dans la ville, 2021; Forrest & González-Vallés, 2017). These pitches, however, do not need to be explicitly connected to sport. Once in the programme, participants are provided education on, amongst others, marketing, opportunity and resource skills such as financial management, communication and business planning.

Table 1 Model for parallel programming approaches

Another example of this approach is the Agora Koumassi project where a multisport complex was built in a populated neighbourhood of Abidjan, Ivory Coast. NGOs and companies can rent out the sport facilities as well as indoor meeting spaces built out of old shipping containers, where they can host events or facilitate training opportunities for young people. One such opportunity is an entrepreneurial incubation programme offered through a collaboration between the NGOs MakeSense and the Yunus Sports Hub (Agora Koumassi, 2021; make sense, 2021; Yunus Sports Hub, 2021). Again here, the sport offer is used as a hook to raise awareness and participation in the entrepreneurship programme. Overall, within this approach, assessment takes place through a mix of methods, including examinations, projects or presentations. Longitudinal surveys may also be used to evaluate certain attitudes or overall entrepreneurial intentions.

Though the attractiveness and simplicity of this approach are appealing, organisations may find it challenging to make the programmatic connection between the entrepreneurship and sport programmes. What connects the two programmes in terms of learning objectives/outcomes? How does one contribute to the other? If these questions are not appropriately resolved, the programme may not be perceived as credible, and numerous opportunities for synergies may be missed. At a minimum, such programmes must actively engage with the local start-up and business communities to ensure that the local entrepreneurship community supports their programmes and participants. Relatedly, sport-focused programmes that aim to launch an entrepreneurship component may not always have the required knowhow or experience to design, or deliver, an entrepreneurship programme. New or emerging programmes, especially, need substantial input from educators, entrepreneurs, industry leaders and sport personalities. Recruiting these resource persons could be time-consuming and difficult if access to the right networks is limited.

Finally, another challenge is ensuring that the sport programme maintains a development focus and not a "win-at-all-cost" mentality. Indeed, from an educational perspective, the added value of the sport programme would be diminished if it is used as a vector for unhealthy attitudes and behaviour.

# 2.2 Sport-Based Experiential Learning

This is one of the most widely used approaches in the field of sport for development. It focuses on integrating sport-based experiential learning activities designed to develop entrepreneurship skills. This approach reinforces the learning objectives of entrepreneurship education and can be easily integrated into an entrepreneurship education programme. It effectively develops transversal entrepreneurial skills and can help make the connection between those skills and entrepreneurship (i.e. during the discussion time of the activities). It also provides facilitators, teachers and social workers with a new and engaging teaching method.

This approach is used by many SFD NGOs and development organisations and agencies, such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Specific examples of sport for entrepreneurship curricula have been developed by the Swiss Academy for Development (Wespi et al., 2015), Kick for Trade (Fleming & Braun, 2020) or Standard Chartered (Standard Chartered, 2020). Thus, these activities often occur in humanitarian, development or NGO settings and actively seek to develop entrepreneurship-related attitudes and skills such as selfefficacy, ambiguity tolerance, proactiveness and interpersonal skills. These curricula generally rely on modified sport activities to deliver experiential learning through discussion, interactive or physical activities and reflection. For instance, the Kick for Trade manual divides each session into three parts. The first part features energisers to introduce the skill addressed by the session. The second part includes a football match that adopts specific rules or conditions that allow the development of the targeted skill (e.g. changing rules, number of players, size of the pitch, etc.). Finally, the last part is dedicated to reflections that allow participants to think about what was learned and how this connects to entrepreneurship in their communities (Fleming & Braun, 2020). Thus, these sport-based approaches provide the hands-on, grouporiented, reflection-driven learning approach often recommended in entrepreneurship education (Lackéus, 2014). As these programmes tend to focus primarily on attitudes and skills, however, assessment tends to be limited to longitudinal surveys or informal observations meant to measure changes in participants' perceptions of their attitudes and skills.

As with the first approach, this approach is of particular interest to many organisations looking to complement existing methods and curricula. Indeed, this approach promises to prepare young people to integrate into the working world by developing

Table 2 Model for sport-based experiential learning approaches

their entrepreneurship attitudes and skills. This approach can also be implemented in collaboration with sport clubs and associations that are interested in promoting entrepreneurship skills and the employability of young people through sport. However, this requires a specialised curriculum as well as trained facilitators who are familiar with the SFD pedagogy and able to ensure that the activities make a meaningful contribution to developing entrepreneurial skills. This requires trained educators with an extensive repertoire of activities to ensure that the facilitators do not overuse the same activities.

Furthermore, many of these manuals or curricula emphasise a narrow set of attitudes, interpersonal and strategic skills like self-efficacy or perseverance (Fleming & Braun, 2020). Other core competencies associated with entrepreneurship education, such as marketing skills, resource skills or basic knowledge of accounting, finance and technology (i.e. declarative skills) (Kuckertz, 2013; Lackéus, 2014), are absent. As such, programmes delivering these sport-based learning approaches must also offer holistic entrepreneurial education opportunities that touch on the wide range of competencies required for successful entrepreneurship. Otherwise, the prospects of developing successful entrepreneurs will remain limited. Table 2 provides an overview of the model for sport-based experiential learning approaches.

# 2.3 Specialised Sport Entrepreneurship Education

The final approach seeks to provide specialised entrepreneurship training to future sport entrepreneurs. This approach targets youth, including NEETs or former sportspeople, who would like to seize the economic opportunities generated by the sport industry. Here, sport may be a hook insofar as the sport sector is attractive to many individuals, but unlike the first approach, the goal is to foster sector-specific entrepreneurship. For instance, entrepreneurs could initiate ventures around sport media, sport event management, personal training, talent identification and more.

The most significant benefit of this approach is that young people can seize the largely underexploited economic opportunities generated by the sport industry. This is especially relevant in the Global South, where the sport industry is undergoing massive transformation thanks to investments from governments, sport federations and former professional athletes. As noted above, many countries are increasingly focusing on sport as a vector for economic development (Moustakas & Işık, 2020; Putri & Moustakas, 2022). Likewise, many recent initiatives are attempting to capitalise on the entrepreneurship potential of athletes (FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences, 2017; International Olympic Committee, 2021; Tw1n, 2019). Tapping into this entrepreneurial potential may be especially important in countries with high youth unemployment and limited formal employment opportunities. However, to achieve this potential, sport entrepreneurship education programmes must help develop concrete business ideas and build a conducive environment to foster cooperation with and within the sport sector (Ratten & Jones, 2018).

A notable example of such a programme comes from TIBU in Morocco. Initially a basketball-focused NGO, the organisation has slowly integrated sport employability and entrepreneurship education into its programming over the last 5 years. Through a multifaceted programme that includes entrepreneurship workshops, practical sport experiences and networking with local sport sector actors, TIBU aims to (re)integrate Moroccan youth into the workforce via employment or entrepreneurial activities (TIBU, 2020; TIBU, 2021). Through this programme, participating youth obtain a 1-year scholarship to partake in courses on sport-specific topics such as coaching, sport business and sport policy and more general areas such as finance, communication and language. Prospective entrepreneurs emerging from this can then apply for the Sports Corners programme, whereby these young entrepreneurs can participate in a 6-month incubation programme and receive support from mentors (Orange Corners, 2022). Much like the first approach, assessments in this approach can take a variety of formats to match the individual content delivered.

However, offering relevant, specialised training for the sport sector can present significant challenges to organisations. In many emerging countries, the sport sector remains poorly mapped out, and many parts of the sector are underexploited. Thus, finding knowledge and relevant expertise in those areas may be challenging, and understanding market needs or gaps may be complex. Indeed, in countries such as Indonesia or Botswana, the sport industry remains poorly mapped out, and there is limited policy to support its growth (Moustakas & Işık, 2020; Putri & Moustakas,

Table 3 Model for specialised sport entrepreneurship approaches

2022). Interestingly, the European Commission is conducting a study of sectors connected to the sport industry in Senegal in the context of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) in Dakar (2026). The objective of this study is to understand better the sectors that are connected to the sport industry in Senegal and to evaluate how a sporting event, such as the YOG, could be used to stimulate those sectors. Studies such as this should be conducted to provide vital information regarding the status of the sport sector and connected industries. Table 3 provides an overview of the model for specialised sport entrepreneurship approaches.

### 3 Discussion and Future Directions

We have outlined what we see as the three main approaches for entrepreneurship education within sport. Sport is an attractive and growing sector that offers opportunities for both skill development and economic growth. As we have noted, there is a growing body of evidence that pedagogically adapted sport programmes can support the development of attitudes and skills related to success in entrepreneurial ventures (Lackéus, 2014; Williams et al., 2022). Likewise, we see that the sport industry is growing in many parts of the world and presents opportunities for economic diversification. Yet, these converging trends alone are not enough to guarantee the success of these entrepreneurship education approaches. Numerous areas require further development and research. Above, we have discussed the benefits and challenges associated with each approach. To conclude, we would like to offer three final recommendations for the development of sport entrepreneurship education as a whole.

First and foremost, there is a need to disentangle employability promotion and entrepreneurship education. Many of the programmes or curricula we have mentioned mix both, and there is a real risk that this sidelines entrepreneurship or conflates it with employability. Especially in countries with large informal sectors or high youth unemployment, such as Tunisia, Jordan or South Africa (World Bank, 2021), entrepreneurship education may be a much more relevant and attractive offer. Clearly focusing on entrepreneurship would also allow programmes, especially those using the experiential learning approach, to more finely address the attitudes, skills and knowledge required for successful entrepreneurship. Indeed, whereas employability programmes may focus on specific qualifications, tools or professional skills, entrepreneurship education must instead develop a range of flexible and suitable competencies (Kuckertz, 2013; et al., 2008).

Second, there remains a glaring lack of research and assessment of entrepreneurship education in and through sport. Though there is some work, it focuses on sport entrepreneurship education within higher education (Ansari et al., 2020; González-Serrano et al., 2017) or related to sport employability programmes within SFD (Coalter et al., 2020; Spaaij et al., 2013). There is a need to explore the intersection between sport and entrepreneurship education in more detail both within and, especially, beyond the higher education context. Researching the impact of individual programmes and the overall approaches described here is paramount to fully understand the potential and limitations of sport within entrepreneurship education. In particular, most research or assessment occurs during or shortly after the programmes, and there remain significant gaps in exploring the sustainability of programme outcomes.

Finally, there is a need for a thorough understanding of the status and needs of the sport sector as well as opportunities within connected sectors. As highlighted above, such sectoral mapping has been identified as a critical step for numerous countries, including Senegal and Indonesia, and is essential to target entrepreneurship education programmes and develop relevant business ideas effectively. However, the value of such mapping extends to all of the approaches presented here. For parallel programming and sport-focused programmes, a greater understanding of the sector would allow practitioners to establish partnerships with companies that could enhance the effectiveness of their sport and sport entrepreneurship activities.

In the end, though, no matter the approach or geographic context, we strongly encourage programmes, researchers and funders to support regular participant engagement, offer follow-up support services and avoid short or one-time events. Entrepreneurship, like the broader processes behind development, is, after all, a lifelong endeavour.

### References

Agora Koumassi. (2021). Home. Retrieved December 21, 2021, from https://agorakoumassi.com

Louis Moustakas is a researcher and lecturer at the German Sport University. His research interests include sport and social cohesion, sport for development and sport policy. His work as both an academic and practitioner has taken him, amongst others, to South Africa, Botswana, Ivory Coast, Canada, the Netherlands and Ukraine.

Stephen Reynard has over 10 years of experience working in the field of sport for development and peace (SDP). His experiences have included starting a grassroots sport for reconciliation project in DRC; managing the sportanddev.org platform; advising the implementation of GIZ's S4D project in Togo; performing multiple consultancies in the field of SDP for GIZ, UNICEF, the Swiss Academy for Development and the German Sport University; and most recently joining UNHCR's sport coordination team in Geneva.

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 Role of (Self-)Reflection in an Increasingly Digital Entrepreneurship Education Environment

Louisa Huxtable-Thomas and Taiga Brahm

Abstract (Self-)reflection is an increasingly utilised pedagogy in entrepreneurship education. This chapter conceptualises reflection as it pertains to education about, for and through entrepreneurship. It provides a review of the empirical literature, identifies some of the issues for student learning through reflection and introduces new perspectives on the role and requirements of the educator as they seek to create suitable environments for reflection – both for teaching and assessment.

Keywords Reflection · Entrepreneurship · Education · Teaching · Experiential learning

### 1 Introduction

(Self-)reflection is an important and often-used approach in entrepreneurship education (EE). It is specifically mentioned in the 'EntreComp framework' (Bacigalupo et al., 2016) and its accompanying practical guide, the EntreComp playbook (Bacigalupo et al., 2020), as one of the nine principles of EE. The significance of this framework is in its high rate of adoption across Europe and the UK as a standard for entrepreneurial competence. The authors emphasise the need to 'fail, reflect and recover', as a crucial step in the learning process. This latter role of reflection, as a type of metacognition, is well established in the paradigm of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984).

L. Huxtable-Thomas (✉)

T. Brahm

School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Business and Economics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany 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\_20

As an educator you can put emphasis on re ection, by embedding iterative fl cycles of discovery, ideation and testing in the process but also by asking learners (individually or in groups) to reflect upon their learning experience. They can do it in writing or orally. When they perform such a selfreflection exercise, their learning outcomes become apparent, in turn contributing to increased self-efficacy, which is one of the EntreComp competences.

Entry from EntreComp playbook, (Bacigalupo et al., 2020, p. 17)

While reflection has been an often-discussed issue in the scientific discourse on management education (Reynolds, 1998, 1999; Cunliffe, 2004; Gray, 2007) and its importance for EE is emphasised (Bacigalupo et al., 2016; Kassean et al., 2015), its conceptual basis, also in the light of increasing digitalisation, is not yet clear.

In this chapter, we will first conceptualise reflection with reference to different epistemic traditions, leading to distinct theoretical strands (for a review see Mann et al., 2009). Second, the barriers to reflection processes in EE will be discussed. In this regard, the role of educators in EE is also considered. Third, we will examine how digitalisation changes our conceptions of EE.

The goal of the chapter is to provide a sound theoretical and practical basis for incorporating reflection into EE which should enable readers to make informed decisions about their own practice.

# 2 The Role of Reflection Approaches in Entrepreneurship Education

Different epistemic traditions conceptualise reflection in distinct theoretical strands (for a review see Mann et al., 2009). For instance, several theoretical approaches have developed from Dewey's (1997) pragmatist philosophy. There, reflection is conceived as a mode of dealing with practical situations and is regarded as a cognitive process, i.e. a mode of thinking. Accordingly, when a practical problem, such as the founding of an enterprise, occurs, the entrepreneur's current observations are linked with theoretical knowledge and – if available – experience (Dewey, 1997). The pragmatist tradition of reflective thinking has been widely adopted by entrepreneurship scholars. Most prominently, Schön based his concept of 'reflective practice' (Schön, 1983) directly on Dewey (Schön, 1992).

In Schön's conceptualisation, reflective practice is about developing a specific way of approaching and solving practical problems. In this definition, 'practice' is the key element; Schön's concept was originally conceived as the cognitive link between problems encountered in exercise of a profession or activity, the scientific knowledge relevant for solving these problems and the mode(s) in which this knowledge can be applied. Accordingly, Schön's concept can be directly transferred to the entrepreneurial process where it is crucial to apply scientific or theoretical knowledge not only to generate the idea for one's enterprise but also to apply management knowledge and skills to successfully found the start-up. In EE, the concept of reflection as a way to solve a problem is well established – reflection is a way of reasoning through complicated or complex situations, rather than simple or predictable ones for which a correct answer can be known (Van Beurden et al., 2013; Moon, 2001). Furthermore, when it comes to the more complex lifeworld of the entrepreneur, self-reflection is also a valid way of overcoming the emotional and resilience burdens of practical entrepreneurship which are often connected to intense emotions (Gallos, 2012; Huxtable-Thomas et al., 2016). The entrepreneur must often lead and be confident in their actions, relying on their own self-efficacy to deliver change, in an inherently novel and uncertain situation. Self-reflection provides an opportunity for learning from this process to prevent making the same mistake twice.

However, reflective practice is more than developing automatic routines and simply implementing theoretical concepts in complex situations. Instead, to become a truly reflective entrepreneur, it is necessary to cultivate a constant 'back and forth' between the current problem the founders of an enterprise are facing in practice, the emotional and cognitive reactions (including unconscious biases) that these stimulate and the abstract theories, models or concepts of entrepreneurship they act upon (Schön, 1992; Gibbs, 1988). Consequently, reflective entrepreneurs need to constantly (a) test their own assumptions about how practice works, (b) try to understand why certain processes or actions do or do not work and (c) analyse why their own theories and assumptions about entrepreneurial practice are (not) viable.

With reflection on action and reflection in action, Schön (1983) proposes two reflective modes that can also be applied to entrepreneurship (e.g. Lahn & Erikson, 2016): reflection on action looks at entrepreneurial processes in retrospect, encompasses an appraisal of how a situation has been handled and has an evaluative quality. In contrast, reflection in action takes place within the situation and during action. Reflection in action involves actively invoking experiences, feelings and assumptions during a situation as it unfolds in order to create new ways of understanding and interacting. This proactive form of reflection is fundamentally different from simply 'applying' professional theories and models. Applying a known concept or theory is usually a result of planned behaviour, based on anticipating an outcome and imagining the potential barriers to it. This simple application differs from reflection in action as the latter involves questioning and adapting the prior conceptual understanding during the moment of a particular entrepreneurial challenge. When undertaking reflection in action, the entrepreneur is neither dwelling on a past action nor planning a future one but instead utilising their knowledge of different theoretical lenses and past experiences to assess and appraise the entrepreneurial situation as it happens in order to decide how to act (Schön, 1992).

Accordingly, the reflective practitioner recognises an unexpected or surprising situation and tries to grasp it by referring to a behavioural repertoire of examples, situations and actions he or she has used before (reflection in action). However, Schön (1983) emphasises that many practical problems cannot be solved by only referring to the existing repertoire of actions but need a novel combination of existing knowledge or the development of new problem solutions. Reflective practitioners, thus, possess strategies to enhance their repertoire to react adequately to such unexpected situations. This helps them to challenge assumptions and avoid mental fixations and cognitive biases that often lead to improper strategic decisions in business environments (Larrivee, 2008; Mahon & O'Neill, 2020).

It can be argued that both kinds of reflection are necessary to build and expand upon a person's behavioural repertoire: reflecting in action enables practitioners to realise when their actions are inadequate and when their behavioural repertoire is insufficient. Reflection on action takes place after an unexpected situation. It involves a careful and systematic analysis aiming at understanding why the person chose to act as he or she did, to evaluate this reaction and to develop strategies for similar upcoming situations. Thus, reflection on action adds insights and action strategies to the behavioural repertoire.

In sum, reflective practice is a way of thinking, i.e. a specific intellectual method or tool to avoid potentially harmful thinking such as cognitive biases (Thomas, 2018) or post hoc fallacies. It does not, however, propose a specific attitude or stance towards the object of reflection. Other approaches stress the critical element of reflection (Cunliffe, 2004; Athanassiou et al., 2003; Dehler, 2009; Heijltjes et al., 2014). In contrast to reflective practice, critical reflection explicitly aims to question current attitudes, perceptions and practices (Reynolds, 1998). Critical reflection has its roots in critical theory (Habermas, 1983), thus aiming to realise, understand and possibly change dominant power structures.

With regard to empirically measuring students' reflection, both reflective practices as well as critical reflection are ill-defined concepts (Kember et al., 2008). In particular, common concepts of reflection fail to identify discernible characteristics or indicators of reflection. For instance, for critical reflection, authors often refer to critical theory without further distinguishing the characteristics of such critical reflection process. If they become more concrete, the descriptions remain rather abstract with examples such as knowledge, power and reflexivity (Fook & Askeland, 2006). More concrete characteristics are necessary to distinguish reflective from less or non-reflective action and, ultimately, to operationalise it into observable measures. To develop a survey instrument measuring the quality of student reflection, Kember et al. (2000) combined the pragmatist tradition with the concept of critical reflection. This resulted in four reflection 'levels', which, in accordance with Mezirow (1991, 1997), are termed 'habitual action', 'understanding', 'reflection' and 'critical reflection' (Kember et al., 2000, p. 383–385). Habitual action refers to automated processes that happen without deliberate thinking. Called 'knowing in action' by Schön (1983), this often refers to much practiced routines, e.g. accounting procedures. Understanding is defined as an 'academic type of learning in which the student might reach an understanding of a concept without reflecting upon its significance in personal or practical situations' (Kember et al., 2000, p. 384). Understanding is regarded as pre-reflective as this level of thinking is rather idiosyncratic and not related to real-world circumstances. In practice, this behaviour occurs, e.g. when management principles such as shareholder value are applied without regarding its consequences for a firm's other stakeholders. Reflection captures the core of Dewey's (1997) 'reflective thought' which defines reflection as an 'active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends' (Dewey, 1997, p. 6). In contrast to understanding, reflective thinking tests if a concept is valid and adequate for a concrete situation. Consequently, knowledge is not regarded as idiosyncratic but needs to be tested in real-world settings using logical reasoning. This may lead a person to change her/his 'point of view' (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5) regarding hitherto espoused concepts and practices. Critical reflection contains an element of deliberate scepticism and an intention to change current circumstances. The aim of critical reflection is to change a person's 'habits of mind' (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5), i.e. to question one's basic assumptions, norms and values. For example, in entrepreneurial contexts, critical reflection may be targeted at an entrepreneur's personal and business goals, balancing different kinds of values to be generated.

# 3 Why Is Reflection in Entrepreneurship Education So Difficult?

Reflection first appeared in the EE literature in the early twenty-first century. While it has not been possible to pinpoint the exact first use, the context is clear. The early 2000s saw a shift from the economic and theoretical view of EE towards a more pragmatic and applied view. This came at a time when work by Shepherd (2003) focussed on the emotional burdens of entrepreneurship; Hannon's (2005) work on the philosophical underpinnings of EE highlights the role of both reflection and the concepts of learning 'about, for or through' entrepreneurship; and Sarasvathy (2001) introduced effectuation. In general, the realm of EE was moving away from learning 'about' entrepreneurship as a theoretical endeavour to be planned and predicted, towards a more immersive process to be felt and experienced (learning 'through' entrepreneurship) (Kakouris & Liargovas, 2021). Hence, the need for reflection as a component in the nascent entrepreneur's toolkit was soon recognised. Initially identified as part of the 'radical' educational philosophy (Hannon, 2005), reflection soon became a standard expectation in EE (Bacigalupo et al., 2020; Kassean et al., 2015; Neck & Greene, 2011). While reflection on action may well be an effective cognitive process to learn from experiencing entrepreneurial failure as per the 'Kolb cycle' (Vince, 1998), the research that verifies this logic is still in the early stages. What has been published suggests that reflection usually occurs during the slow, creeping death of a firm, not in the 'fail fast' method that is advocated in higher education. In that context, individual or groups of learners are encouraged to start enterprises as fast as possible with the understanding that they will learn from their mistakes. Often, this comes with the expectation that the enterprise will not survive. Successful learning from failure has been observed as something that happens in a team or dyad, rather than isolated to individual introspection (Shepherd et al., 2016; Cope, 2003).

Nevertheless, it is still rather unclear what supports and hinders reflection. We will discuss this question further by reviewing the empirical evidence regarding antecedents and challenges of students' reflection. Since literature on the particular challenges of reflection in EE is scarce, we include literature from other domains and transfer it to the domain of entrepreneurship.

Overall, evidence shows that students often do not meet the expected levels of reflective capabilities (Boud & Walker, 1998). While there are many suggestions about pedagogies which can foster student reflection, little is known about specific antecedents of different levels of reflection. In particular, we found hardly any research that explicitly distinguishes between different types of antecedents such as personal (e.g. cognitive capability, motivation, attitudes) and contextual (e.g. pedagogies, instructor characteristics) aspects.

As higher levels of reflection (in the sense of Kember et al., 2000) are positively correlated with students' learning outcomes (Peltier et al., 2005), it is important to find out what supports students to reach critical reflection. Both instructor-to-student interactions and student-to-student interactions are supportive if they encourage students to raise doubts about the subject matter, critique and discuss (Peltier et al., 2005).

Findings from other disciplines, primarily medical education, teacher education and social work, show that students tend to have misconceptions about the purpose of reflection. This negatively affects students' attitudes towards reflection (Beveridge et al., 2013). In educational contexts, it is also often unclear for students what expectations are related with reflection tasks (Dyment & O'Connell, 2010, 2011). This leads to superficial and impersonal reflection processes. In this context, it is also problematic when students consider reflection only as an academic exercise rather than a way of developing practice (Duke & Appleton, 2000). Some students have concerns about reflection because they involve their feelings. In the same vein, they have the impression that they are required to write and talk about things which they are unsure about (Platzer et al., 2000). Reflection under these conditions seems unprofessional and not academic to them, and this contradicts Bacigalupo et al.'s (2020) assertion that reflection enhances self-efficacy.

Additionally, a lack of trust in the lecturer hinders reflection (Dyment & O'Connell, 2010; Dyment & O'Connell, 2011). In this regard, it is also important to note that students whose reflection is assessed are driven to write to the assessment criteria rather than being honest or questioning their own thoughts and practices (Maloney et al., 2013).

In summary, students generally seem to be unsure what they are expected to do when they are supposed to reflect. Various studies found that uncertainty about reflection tasks results in negative emotions towards reflection. To tackle the challenge of developing students' capabilities for reflection, some studies tested pedagogies to enhance students' reflection. The most common interventions encompass reflective writing tasks, for instance, journaling (Cunliffe, 2004; Pavlovich et al., 2009), case studies (Rendtorff, 2015) or guided internships (Schön, 1987; Carson & Fischer, 2006).

A further underlying issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of educator competence or purpose in teaching reflection. It might be assumed that educators should be able to teach reflection for two reasons: the first is that reflection is a useful tool in enhancing lifelong learning and criticality (Bharuthram, 2018), and several authors have written at length about how to teach reflection (Bharuthram, 2018; Ryan, 2012, 2013; Smith, 2011). Second, reflection is familiar to educators because it is widely used in teacher education (Moate et al., 2019; Clarà et al., 2019). In one conceptualisation, reflection is a way to undercover values and preconceptions, contrast them with an 'ideal' and develop new perspectives (Alsina & Mulà, 2019). In another, reflection (on action) is a way of '– evolving to a virtual simulated classroom, where reflection in action is used to respond to potential difficult learner behaviours' (McGarr, 2021, p. 17). The conclusion that can be made from the wide range of research into reflection as a pedagogy for teacher education demonstrates that an educator's experience of reflection is learned for a specific purpose. This purpose is to reflect on their own experiences in order to enhance their teaching practice. Therefore, it appears that while many educators learn through reflection, educators are rarely taught how to teach reflection, and as a result, they are often unaware of the ways in which reflection can be used to enhance learning in technical subjects outside of education. This subtle gap might explain issues identified above, such as reflection being assessed inadequately or reflection being used instead of similar but more suitable methods such as autobiographical analysis or participative observation.

Another challenge for educators is how and why to use reflection in assessment. On the one hand, it can be argued that the pedagogy of reflection requires constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2015). This means that reflection needs to be matched by a learning outcome of 'reflective skill' and 'improved practice or performance'. In consequences, this must be matched to an assessment on the quality of a learner's reflection on their own practice. On the other hand, any attempt to assess the practice of others or the intention to utilise specific theory or knowledge is not suitably assessed through reflection but instead through other methods such as narrative inquiry or observation journals. This is not specific to EE but is certainly a challenge that entrepreneurship educators need to address: it is relatively easy to set reflection as an assignment in order to measure a learning outcome of entrepreneurial practice, but only if the marking criteria are related to the quality, depth and understanding of reflection in and on practice, rather than on the factors of success or failure of the entrepreneurial endeavour (as is often the case). This overcomes Maloney et al.'s (2013) issue of students failing to reflect because they are instead writing to address only the marking criteria. This is because constructively aligned assessment criteria for reflection must include honesty, questioning personal practice and noting routes to improvement (Biggs & Tang, 2015).

A further enhancement to the practice of reflection could be for lecturers to understand why reflection is a suitable method for teaching and/or assessment of entrepreneurship practice. As noted by Van Beveren et al. (2018), the reasons that educators utilise (critical) reflection are diverse and sometimes contradictory. That research identified educators were using reflection to teach everything from personal awareness to aiding in social transformation as well as a critical tool with which to analyse received wisdom. This diversity suggests that reflection is a flexible tool but also that it is open to appropriation to support dominant professional or epistemological approaches. Within EE it has become a norm that is now rarely questioned.

To overcome this, an understanding of why reflection is being used to enhance teaching is needed. Reflection was first introduced to the education pedagogy as one of many stages in an experiential learning process (Steinaker & Bell, 1979) or cycle (Vince & Reynolds, 2009) based on the established cognitive theory of experiential learning. Reflection is a conscious and self-evaluative method of internalising and creating meaning from an experience and is followed by a process of dissemination or abstract conceptualisation. Therefore, the educational experience needs to be accompanied by these precursors (experiences) and subsequent actions or intentions. Further, as stated by Lynch et al. (2021), reflection is a way of overcoming cognitive overload among entrepreneurship students.

# 4 Implications for an Increasingly Digital Entrepreneurship Education

When looking into digital entrepreneurship education (EE), we need to first ask whether all forms of EE, i.e. teaching about, for and through entrepreneurship, are similarly feasible for digital teaching and learning. At first glance, one might argue that teaching about entrepreneurship is easily transferable to the digital world since we can easily transfer the rather teacher-centric mode of teaching about entrepreneurship (Lackéus, 2015). When looking into the characteristics of teaching for entrepreneurship, e.g. practical business tools, case studies, mentoring and on-site visits (e.g. (Kakouris & Liargovas, 2021)), transferring this part to an online mode of teaching seems to be more challenging. However, with the increase of improved options by simulation providers (Liguori & Winkler, 2020) and the potential of establishing regular small-group or 1:1 mentoring sessions online, teaching for entrepreneurship seems also possible online. So what about teaching through entrepreneurship? At first glance, this seems to be impossible to move online. However, there are at least two possibilities to rethink EE through entrepreneurship: first of all, business ideas are increasingly resulting from digitalisation processes (e.g. Finkle & Olsen, 2019), and the world of working is becoming more digital. Accordingly, founding an enterprise has for many entrepreneurs become a purely digital/online endeavour. Furthermore, if the business is not online, there is also the option to start the business offline and to accompany this process through digital education. This would result in a hybrid variant of teaching through entrepreneurship with the reflection of the knowledge and skills development to be moved online. This online aspect may afford learners the 'arm's length' conditions that enable them to be honest and deeply reflective, in a way that might overcome some of the issues of trust or self-confidence previously mentioned, as noted by Beveridge et al. (2013) and Peltier et al. (2005).

In this regard, the move to increasingly digital education also provides an opportunity to improve the practice and purpose of reflection. These come in three areas:

The first is because there are more accessible experiences to reflect upon through digital and virtual interaction. E-commerce and drop shipping provide opportunities for simple and low-cost introductions to entrepreneurship practice which were not possible previously. Second, the proliferation of digital tools and more apps, like Loopme.io and SimplyIdeas, which help structure reflections through the process of experience (Lackéus & Westerberg, n.d.), as well as more mainstream journaling and reflection apps like Reflect, Reflectly, InnerHour and Questions Diary, improve the familiarity and practice of reflection by providing guided templates for learners. The increased mainstreaming of virtual learning environments has provided an opportunity to utilise these tools in an authentic way which promotes lifelong reflective 'practice'.

Last, online formats improve possibilities for collaboration and networking both among students and between students and educators. Providing this collaborative space for reflection not only affords an arm's length 'safe' space for feedback from educators and peers on the depth and quality of their reflection but also promotes the practice of action learning (Byrne et al., 2016) itself a valuable workplace tool for entrepreneurs and leaders.

### 5 Conclusion and Recommendations for Practice

There is an acceptance in the academe that reflection can, and should, be practiced during the teaching process; both as a way of improving learning outcomes but also as a useful tool to aid [entrepreneurial] resilience later in life. The literature reviewed suggests that there is great potential for reflective practice in EE; today's increasingly digital education environment provides a new context in which further research should investigate the supposition that entrepreneurship can be practiced more easily and with relatively few resources – through online retail, sales and services. In turn, digital tools have been created which allow assessment of the change in entrepreneurial mindset and practical skills, through the guided reflective practices available using different applications (see above).

However, the literature also confirms that the issues of introducing reflection to education as a whole have not yet been overcome. In part, this can be attributed to a lack of understanding about the conceptualisation of reflection itself as a way of 'reasoning' and coping with fast moving, complex decisions. Instead, reflection has been utilised as a 'pedagogy', a way of 'teaching' and promoting independent learning. It appears that the right tool is being used for the wrong purpose. This can explain some of the issues faced by teachers and learners alike, such as, failing to include the emotional component in the reflection and its assessment.

The outcomes of empirical studies suggest that the methods and skills to operationalise good-quality reflection are used inconsistently among educators. The results can be poor attitudes towards reflection by learners, uncertainty about the purpose of the reflection in their learning journey and at the worst undermining confidence in the education process by promoting activities which appear unprofessional and non-academic.

Much of this can be ascribed to a lack of research or scholarly material about how to teach reflection. This results in a lack of appropriate training for educators. From our point of view, reflection is best taught by those that practice it themselves and that have been taught to teach it for the purpose that it is used. This is missing from much of formal education training. What is taught poorly is rarely assessed well, and so the issues appear to be further exacerbated when reflection is then set as a form of assessment. If the expected outcomes of reflection are not well understood, neither the teaching practice nor the assignment can be aligned to achieving it.