Co-Creation in Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education: Lessons from Business–University Educational Partnerships

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The paper is well composed and the basic argument is very interesting. Notwithstanding, my basic recommendations are:

The Methods section is missing: a method section needs to be added where it must be explained the premises, research history and research resources of this case study. It would be, interesting to the reader if the authors provided some rationale for it.

The discussion section needs improvement.  Although the limitations of SEE and co-creation knowledge model were enhanced in terms of resource constraints, cultural context and theoretical and practical application, the article could delve deeper into  issues such as the lack of standardization and evaluation metrics of the model and the industry relevance and rapid changes that we need to keep up with.

It would be useful to identify research priorities and to analyze more future research directions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Finally, English might be slightly ameliorated as in line 148-153. Do you mean ‘thinking by doing’ or ‘learning by doing’, instead? (line 282)

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title and objective of the paper are not only informative but also relevant. The abstract, although concise and informative, could be enhanced by incorporating a brief description of the research questions, especially considering their presentation in lines 82-88.

The Introduction adopted a structured approach, featuring two pertinent sub-chapters that effectively orient readers to the topic and theoretical framework of the presented case study. However, it is noteworthy that the excessive use of auto-citation becomes apparent with the first four references. Demonstrating the multitude of ecological challenges faced by our global world could be more convincingly supported by incorporating additional, more pertinent references.

References 40, 67, and 68 have been cited in relation to the collaborative process among students, emphasizing teamwork with a company to address a real sustainable problem (lines 274-289). I recommend that the authors include additional references specifically focusing on this process within the context of university learning in Finland. Essentially, my suggestion to the authors is to enrich their citation list with references from academic literature showcasing case studies of similar or identical project-based learning initiatives implemented in various universities across Finland.

Table 1 offers a comprehensive overview of the primary strengths and weaknesses of the co-creation process, yet its origin seems somewhat unexplained. I highly recommend that the authors elucidate the process leading to the conclusions presented in Table 1. Providing details such as the research instruments employed for gathering data from students, teachers, and local business representatives could enhance the transparency of the study. Additionally, offering excerpts from interviews with individuals involved in the research could also be valuable, creating a broader context before the summarized information in Table 1.

Limitations of the study are not provided. Furthermore, the authors need to clarify the contributions of this study to the existing knowledge on the topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Co-creation in Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education: The Experience of Lapland Applied Science University

 

It is undoubtedly a novel and interesting investigation. The conceptual framework is meaningful and relevant. We agree with the authors that a learning process that is developed in a real context, attempts to solve local business problems collaboratively, and adopting the principles of co-creation of knowledge can lead to sustainable solutions. Sure is a experiential learning, contributing to bringing societies closer together towards sustainability. 

 

Similarly, we think it is a great success to raise awareness among students and stakeholders, through this learning, about the importance of solving environmental problems not only for the company's own financial benefit or the 'profit-first' mentality. This methodology for solving real problems undoubtedly demands new knowledge and innovations. And mainly we consider it very correct to highlight that entrepreneurship must move on economic, social, and ecological bases. Perhaps we can suggest that political power and business power must be considered since they can hinder many sustainable measures worked on in these learning processes.

 

The concept of Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education is well defined and founded, as well as the roles of the agents: students, teachers, and stakeholders. The problem-solving strategy together with critical thinking and a critical perspective is undoubtedly a perfect choice. The relationship between co-creation of knowledge and learning experiences in collaborative context and experiments with stakeholders in real-world settings is undoubtedly a learning process of absolute quality. Without forgetting the authors' declaration of using an Arctic perspective to sustain life in the region. If the studies are focused on Arctic competences, social, cultural, ecological, industrial, and technological, it is undoubtedly a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, and socially impeccable learning. Finally, the description of the learning objectives and methodology seems perfect to us.

 

The problem is that the authors should have taken one more step towards implementation. Take the step of converting the magnificent co-construction of knowledge into the creation and design of an authentic learning context.

For example, there are not strategies to seek the collaboration of stakeholders. And the characteristics of selecting collaborating companies and the problems to work on.

Other example, it is necessary a curricular plan that relates the learning activities to be carried out in the design, preparation, and conclusion of the problem-solving project, and a strategy to search for references and resources, for the distribution of tasks, deliberation and discussion meetings, and specific workshops. 

 

This learning methodology is a process and a path and cannot be left to absolute improvisation. We encourage authors to specify the phases, activities, and meetings. And also design the collection of information to detect learning problems during the process. For example, identifying strengths and challenges of students, teachers and institutions, companies, must be obtained through meetings and interviews.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version was significantly improved and deserves to be published in the present form.