THE POSSIBILITIES OF ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0774 THE POSSIBILITIES OF ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP Matthew Eriksen Department of Management Providence College 1 Cunningham Square Providence, RI 02918-0001 meriksen@providence.edu Drew L. Harris Management and Organization Department School of Business Central Connecticut State University 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 06050 harrisdrl@ccsu.edu tom king Department of Management Providence College 1 Cunningham Square Providence, RI 02918-0001 tking@providence.edu Sue Lehrman Dean, School of Business Administration Philadelphia University School House Lane & Henry Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19144 lehrmans@philau.edu ABSTRACT In this session, we want to explore the concept of an academic entrepreneur and what possibilities might arise for faculty, curriculum, and academic institutions. We present academic entrepreneur or academic entrepreneurship, not as an empirical description of an existing reality but rather as a concept that provokes possibility. This is not about entrepreneurship as a discipline or institutional arrangement to commercialize properties developed at universities. Rather, it is about exploring the ontology, process, and context of entrepreneurship as might be applied to academe. Our session will create a space of possibility. Keywords: Academic Entrepreneurship 1

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0775 PLANNING DETAILS Proposed audience: All instructors Maximum number of participants: 30 Type of session: Dialogue and thought Special requirements: Length: 60 minutes 2

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0776 INTRODUCTION AND TAKEAWAYS As some have used the term, our idea of academic entrepreneurship is not about academia serving as an incubator for business enterprises or entrepreneurship as a discipline to be taught. Rather it is about conceiving academic praxis as entrepreneurial and the possibilities that emerge for course (content and pedagogy) and curriculum development, research, and institutional arrangements. While in this session we will focus more on the former, curriculum exists within the context of our research demands and institutional arrangements, and those must be part of the conversation (Clark, 1998). Our group contains three academic entrepreneurs and a Dean interested in exploring the possibilities of systematically developing academic entrepreneurship as the source of curriculum development within business schools. The three professors have had successes, setbacks, and moments of stifling conformity throughout their careers. Two are interested in the possibilities of the concept of academic entrepreneurship when viewed from the perspective of a faculty member and conceiving it as embodied, relational experience. The third is contemplating developing a model of the academic entrepreneurship process to facilitate faculty becoming academic entrepreneurs. All four believe in the potential of academic entrepreneurship in transforming educators and higher education. If business schools are on the wrong track (Bennis & O Toole, 2005) and perpetuating theories that result in bad practice (Ghoshal, 2005), do we really want to be reproducing the best practices among them? We explore academic entrepreneurship as an alternative to best practices, which gravitates to conformity and standardization. Academic entrepreneurship is about becoming, multiplicity, and difference (Bergson, 2007). In a world of flux, contingency, and chaos, best practices converge upon fixed knowledge when our new economy appears to call for facilitating inquiry, innovation, continuous learning and the continuous revision of knowledge. Moreover, economics and public attitudes towards education, at least in the United States, are pushing towards conformity and standardization (as vehicles towards accountability) and lower costs (Alexander, 2000; Eaton, 2010) while businesses and some sectors of the public want more innovation, quality, and value from our investment in education (AACSB, 2010). Educational entrepreneurship may provide a viable path to negotiate this mine field of conflicted interests. Entrepreneurship is associated with innovation, value creation, novel assembly of processes and resources, and cost/quality improvements over existing practices (e.g., Brush, Greene & Hart, 2001). These sound like potential paths to the various demands and challenges put upon academe. If one thinks of a continuum of curriculum innovation, one might put best practices at one end and academic entrepreneurship at the other. Best practices are about convergence, homogeneity, generalizations, de-contextualization, Truth, and disembodiment of teaching. In contract, we conceive of academic entrepreneurship as about multiplicity, heterogeneity, uniqueness, contextualization, truths, authenticity, and embodiment of teaching. In this session, we present the concept of an academic entrepreneur, not as an empirical description of an existing reality but rather as a concept that provokes possibility. We want to 3

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0777 explore what possibilities that the concept of an academic entrepreneurship opens up to individual faculty, curriculum, and a school s culture. We are not using the term to describe incubators for entrepreneurship business ventures or centers for commercializing intellectual properties arising in academic settings. Nor are we addressing academic entrepreneurship as a disciplinary subject to be taught or researched (though this could arise as a sub-category of entrepreneurship research in ways similar to what has happened with social entrepreneurship. ). At an individual level, we see educational entrepreneurship containing the following primary characteristics: Awareness (of such things as one s ontology, epistemology, and pedagogical approach) Becoming Authenticity Creativity Innovation Value-focused Self-accountability At a curriculum level, we see educational entrepreneurship having the following characteristics: Multiplicity Experimentation Transformation Divergence versus convergence Value-seeking across the enterprise truths versus Truth At an administrative level Academic entrepreneurial process Administrative support and incentives (hiring, tenure and promotion) Innovative structuring to support individual and curriculum level entrepreneurship Value-creating for the university and the larger community Our session will create the following takeaways: 1. Participants will have explored the possibilities of academic entrepreneurship in their role as educators and/or administrators; 2. They will have considered the entrepreneurial process and how that might translate to academe, especially to course and curriculum; 3. They will have acknowledged their entrepreneurial potential and have several steps available to them to initiate or extend the educational entrepreneurial activities. THEORETICAL GROUNDING In our initial development of the concept of academic entrepreneur, we discovered the notion of intellectual entrepreneurship (Cherwitz, 2005; Beckman and Cherwitz, 2009). At the 4

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0778 University of Texas they have been developing intellectual entrepreneurship across the arts and sciences that evolved into the intercollegial Intellectual Consortium. Beckman and Cherwitz (2009) define intellectual entrepreneurship as a philosophy and vision of education that views academics as innovators and agents of change. It focuses on creating cross-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaborations designed to produce intellectual advancements that can provide real solutions to society s problems and need (28-29). Their idea of intellectual entrepreneurship takes a systematic perspective with a predetermined outcome. In contrast, academic entrepreneurship takes the perspective of individual faculty members becoming entrepreneurs (which may include cross-disciplinary collaborations) and imagines possibilities this creates for curriculum development. In other words, we are concerned with the individual faculty member s visceral, embodied, and relational experience of attempting to be an academic entrepreneur and the possibilities that arise from this way of being. Intellectual entrepreneurship s notions of authenticity and innovation are not about the individual faculty member s authenticity or ability to be innovative but that of the educational enterprise. Rather than pre-defining what constitutes entrepreneurial activity (e.g., cross-campus collaborations to educate citizen scholars by harnessing the core philosophy of Western education (Beckman and Cherwitz, 2009)), the characteristics of a curriculum that arise from, or what one should expect from, an entrepreneurial academic setting, we inquire about what is possible for faculty and curriculum development given an entrepreneurial orientation and process. Our idea of educational entrepreneurship shares with business entrepreneurship the characteristics of creativity, innovation, and economic value creation but also brings in authenticity which might be interpreted as spiritual or moral value creation. Intellectual entrepreneurship has also been explored with respect to the research role of an academic. Cutliffe (2003) states that intellectual entrepreneurship implies a conscious and deliberate attempt on the part of academics to explore the world of ideas boldly; to take more risks in theory development and to move away from being timid researchers (136). With the concept of academic entrepreneurs, transfer this to our role as teachers, where academics move away from being passive to bold teachers and curriculum designers. SESSION DESCRIPTION The session will begin with a brief introduction describing the impetus behind our session. We will then have three short (5-10 minute each) presentations of concepts and tales from the field regarding: 1. The individual as academic entrepreneur and the demands and opportunities this might present, 2. The business process model of entrepreneurship as a launch pad for creating a model for academic entrepreneuring, and 5

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0779 3. The elements of the university context (administrative structures, hiring, P&T process, funding, culture, etc.) that enable or hinder entrepreneurship in academe. After the presentations we will either: a) Have a general discussion, following the lead or focus of the participants, or b) If there are sufficient numbers of interested participants, break into three groups to discuss and explore models, experiences, and possibilities within the three areas of focus. We will follow this with summaries, invitations and offers. That is, we will summarize and capture the possibilities developed in the session for future sharing and development. And, we will make time for participants to make requests, invitations, and offers to extend the conversation beyond the session and the OBTC meeting. As is appropriate with exploration of possibilities, we will conclude with reflections and acknowledgements. APPLICATION TO CONFERENCE THEME The concept of academic entrepreneur embodies possibility. It is being developed not as an attempt to describe an already existing reality but as concept that facilitates the possibilities of becoming of individual faculty and business school curriculum. We want to move beyond the mere conceptualization of the term to exploring the lived-experience of being an academic entrepreneur. In other words, what is the embodied, relational experience of actually being an academic entrepreneur? In addition, we will explore the possibilities of academic entrepreneurship to curriculum development and the administrative structures that can enable and support academic entrepreneurship. Finally, the dialogue during the session will facilitate the exploration of possibilities for each participant and their respective institutions. 6

OBTC_2011_Proceedings-Page0780 REFERENCES AACSB (2010). Business Schools on an Innovation Mission. Report of the AACSB International Task Force on Business Schools and Innovation. http://www.aacsb.edu/resources/innovation/business-schools-on-an-innovationmission.pdf, retrieved on 12/4/2010. Alexander, F.K. (2000). The Changing Face of Accountability: Monitoring and Assessing Institutional Performance in Higher Education The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411-431 Bennis, W.G. & O Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 82(3): 96 104. Beckman, G.D. & Cherwitz, R.A. (2009). Intellectual entrepreneurship: An authentic foundation for higher education reform. Planning for Higher Education, 37 (4), 27-36. Bergson, H. (2007). The Creative Mind: An Introduction to Metaphysics. Dover: Mineola, NY. Cherwitz, J.R. (2005). A new social compact demands real change: Connecting the university to the community. Change, 37 (6), 48-49. Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., & Hart, M.M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 64-78. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, Pergamon Press. Cutcliffe, J.R. (2003). Reconsidering Reflexivity: Introducing the Case for Intellectual Entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (1): 136-148. Eaton, J.S. (2010). Accreditation and the Federal Future of Higher Education. Academe Online, 96(5), http://www.aaup.org/aaup/pubsres/academe/2010/so/feat/eato.htm, retrieved 12/4/2010. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (1), 75-91. 7