Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

27 January 2024

Improving Curricula for Higher Entrepreneurship Education: An International Real-Time Delphi

and
1
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, 14482 Potsdam, Germany
2
Institute of Economic Education, Ludwigsburg University of Education, 71634 Ludwigsburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2024, 14(2), 130;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020130
This article belongs to the Section Curriculum and Instruction
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Existing curricula for entrepreneurship education do not necessarily represent the best way of teaching. How could entrepreneurship curricula be improved? To answer this question, we aim to identify and rank desirable teaching objectives, teaching contents, teaching methods, and assessment methods for higher entrepreneurship education. To this end, we employ an international real-time Delphi study with an expert panel consisting of entrepreneurship education instructors and researchers. The study reveals 17 favorable objectives, 17 items of content, 25 teaching methods, and 15 assessment methods, which are ranked according to their desirability and the group consensus. We contribute to entrepreneurship curriculum research by adding a normative perspective.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship education is supposed to increase students’ willingness [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] and ability [11,12,13,14] to start a new venture. New ventures are expected to contribute to economic growth and social welfare [15,16,17,18,19]. Due to this social–economic value, a vast number of education entrepreneurship programs have been initiated by politics over the last decades [20,21,22,23].
In line with this high educational and political relevance, a vital research landscape on entrepreneurship education exists [24]. The largest proportion of this research is concerned with the positive outcomes of entrepreneurship education, whereas far less attention is paid to the way entrepreneurship education is implemented by means of curricula [25]. In this entrepreneurship curriculum research, existing curricula have been examined to identify how entrepreneurship is taught [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. We now have a good understanding about which major curricular items are used in entrepreneurship education.
However, existing curriculum designs do not guarantee that they represent the best way entrepreneurship can be taught. In addition, curricula need to be updated according to changing circumstances and advancing knowledge [35]. Therefore, we extend the currently predominant analytical view on entrepreneurship curricula with a normative view: how can entrepreneurship curricula be improved? In particular, our research goal is to identify and rank desirable curricular items for higher entrepreneurship education. We pursue this goal by employing an international real-time Delphi study with an expert panel consisting of entrepreneurship education researchers with teaching experience.
This study contributes to entrepreneurship education research and, in particular, entrepreneurship curriculum research by adding a normative perspective on curriculum improvement. Additionally, program managers can use the insights from this study to improve their curriculum designs and entrepreneurship instructors can use them to improve their teaching practice.

2. Background

At its core, entrepreneurship can be defined as the identification or creation, as well as exploitation, of business opportunities, particularly by offering new products or services [36,37]. However, entrepreneurship is not necessarily limited to business contexts and for-profit ventures. Social entrepreneurship aims to find and implement novel solutions to social issues [38,39,40]. Similarly, institutional entrepreneurship disrupts existing social institutions or forms new ones [41,42,43,44].
Consequently, entrepreneurship education aims to teach students the entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, attitudes, thinking, and behavior required to become successful entrepreneurs [2,9,45,46,47]. In the above-mentioned broader understanding, entrepreneurship education can also aim to increase students’ creativity and change-orientation outside the business world [48].
Research on entrepreneurship education has grown exponentially over the last two decades, with currently more than 1000 publications on the Web of Science. Such a large research field can only be approached by bibliometric analyses and, in particular, science mappings, which can provide an overview of the focus areas and trends in entrepreneurship education research [24,25].
Prior entrepreneurship education research has had a strong focus on the impact entrepreneurship education has. In this regard, one of the main questions is whether entrepreneurship education increases the entrepreneurial intention of students [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Other measured outcomes include entrepreneurial attitudes [2,49], entrepreneurial motivation [14], and entrepreneurial competences or skills [11,12,13,14].
In contrast to this outcome perspective, much less research is conducted on how entrepreneurship education takes place [25,50]. We argue that when the output of entrepreneurship education is measured as a dependent variable, attention should also be paid to the specifics of entrepreneurship education itself as the major independent variable, with particular focus on how such curricula are designed. It can be assumed that different entrepreneurship education curricula have different effects.
Curricula consist of several elements or dimensions. A well-established curriculum framework for entrepreneurship education, which can also be applied to other topics, consists of, at least, (1) teaching and learning objectives/goals, (2) teaching and learning contents, (3) teaching and learning methods, and (4) methods to assess the students’ learning performance [25,34,50,51,52,53], on which we focus in this study.
A recent review identified the curricular items discussed in entrepreneurship education [50]: Apart from the entrepreneurship-specific items, there are also entrepreneurship-relevant items from business management, economics, law, IT, and other fields that are reflected in entrepreneurship curricula; among the entrepreneurship-specific items, which are of predominant interest here, in the objectives dimension, various items for entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and attitudes exist. The items in the contents dimension refer to entrepreneurship fundamentals, creativity and innovation, business opportunities and business ideas, business models, business plans and pitching, entrepreneurial finance, new venture creation, entrepreneurial strategy, small business management, and corporate entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurship-specific items in the teaching methods dimension cover methods, such as startup case studies, counseling/mentoring, start-up visits, internships at start-ups, setting up a real venture, incubators [54,55,56], writing a business plan, business plan competitions, pitching, entrepreneurship projects, and design thinking projects [57,58]. Most of these methods can also be used for the assessment dimension [50], by assessing the students’ performance when implementing these tasks or by assessing the presented results of these tasks.

3. Methodology

3.1. Delphi Study

To achieve our research goal, we employed a real-time Delphi study. The Delphi method was originally developed to forecast man-made developments with a lack of historical or technical knowledge, making experience-based opinions by a group of experts necessary [59]. However, Delphi studies are also used without a foresight focus, when an expert consensus is required. The approach is based on the notion that the sum of information gathered by a group is more exact than information provided by an individual [60]. More generally, it is used to identify aspects of a specific topic and to form a group consensus on them [61,62]. This is realized by the collection of topical aspects in the first stage and a rating of them in the second stage of the study. The second stage can either be separated in several iterative rounds or, like in our study, take place in a real-time design [63,64]. In both cases, the study participants rate the items, then see the interim results of the group rating, and can adjust their rating if they prefer. The difference between a multi-round and real-time Delphi is that, in the former case, the interim results are revealed to all experts simultaneously at specific time points, whereas they are shown right after giving the ratings in the latter case, with the option of adjusting the ratings at any time before the survey is closed. With this process, based on anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and group statistical response, the group consensus can be increased [60,65].
The method is well-established: between 1975 and 2017, over 2600 scholarly Delphi-based papers were published [66]. In particular, Delphi studies have also been often used in business and management contexts [67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] and for curriculum development. In the latter case, the experts collect curriculum items and form a group consensus on the most suitable curriculum design. Most applications can be found in medical education [80,81,82,83,84,85]. Although the Delphi methodology has been used several times to develop or improve business and management curricula [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95], its application in the context of entrepreneurship education is still scarce. Morris et al. used the Delphi method to identify entrepreneurial competencies [47]. Similarly, Kaartemo et al. employed the method to find the key knowledge base and attributes that students of international entrepreneurship should gain [96]. With our study, we extend these former studies by applying a wider curricular perspective.

3.2. Expert Selection

As Delphi studies are expert surveys, it is highly important to ensure the expertise of the panel [65,97,98,99,100]. To meet this requirement, we recruited entrepreneurship education scholars who research and teach in this field. We defined a threshold of a minimum of three published articles on entrepreneurship education as a valid signal of potential expertise in that field. The minimum teaching experience was set to one year in the field of entrepreneurship to ensure that the experts do not only have theoretical but also practical experience in teaching.
To identify the potential experts for the Delphi panel, we conducted a topic search on “entrepreneurship education” on the Web of Science on 1 June 2023 and found 208 authors who met the above-mentioned publication threshold. The Web of Science is considered as a leading database of scientific literature [101,102], particularly for social sciences [103]. After removing double entries, the list contained 201 authors.
The selection of the minimum teaching experience could not be applied in the Web of Science. Therefore, we added this criterium as a question in both Delphi rounds. As no participant had indicated less than one year of teaching experience, no respondent had to be removed from the sample.
After we retrieved the 201 potential experts, we searched for the email addresses of these scholars on Google. In several cases, we found scholars with the same name from different disciples. In these cases, we added “entrepreneurship education” in the search string to identify the correct one. We were unable to find five authors, reducing the preliminary sample to 196 entrepreneurship education scholars. More details on the final expert panels in both Delphi stages can be found in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1. Panel characteristics of the first Delphi stage.
Table 2. Panel characteristics of the second Delphi stage.

3.3. Data Collection (Stage 1)

We invited the experts to participate in the first Delphi stage on 4 July 2023. We asked them to name three to ten desirable developments in entrepreneurship education in the next 5–10 years with regards to teaching objectives/goals, teaching contents, teaching methods, and assessment methods (regarding the students’ learning performance). The survey was implemented on Google Forms. Thirteen emails could not be delivered to the recipients and two responded that they preferred not to participate. Therefore, the potential expert panel consisted of 181 entrepreneurship education scholars.
We closed the survey on 4 August 2023. Thirty respondents participated in the first Delphi stage, leading to a response rate of 16.6 percent. The sample size may appear somewhat small at first glance. However, Delphi studies commonly comprise a small number of experts [104], mostly 15 to 35 participants [105]. The panel characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The panels’ average teaching experience in entrepreneurship education was 19.8 years and their average research experience in this field was 19.3 years. All participants had a minimum of five years of either teaching or researching in entrepreneurship education, which we consider as both appropriate indicators and thresholds for the required expertise in the field. As mentioned before, all invited participants (co-)authored at least three publications on entrepreneurship education.

3.4. Data Analysis (Stage 1)

The experts provided 80 responses for teaching objectives, 82 for teaching contents, 65 for teaching methods, and 55 for assessment methods. To prepare the data for the second Delphi stage, we used open coding [106,107]. Most answers were given in a concise way and could, therefore, be used as initial codes. When answers were given in longer statements, we reduced the formulation to their core, which then was used as an initial code.
In the next step, we consolidated and unified the data by searching for synonyms in the initial codes, grouping them together, and assigning a short phrase representing the overall meaning as a final code. As a consequence, the number of codes could be reduced to 17 objectives, 17 contents, 25 teaching methods, and 15 assessment methods, which were then used for the second Delphi stage. To avoid redundancy rather than providing a complete list of all items, we refer to Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, where these items are ranked according to the panel ratings in the second Delphi stage.
Table 3. Desirable teaching objectives.
Table 4. Desirable teaching contents.
Table 5. Desirable teaching methods.
Table 6. Desirable assessment methods.

3.5. Data Collection (Stage 2)

On 24 August 2023, we invited the 181 entrepreneurship education scholars to participate in the second stage, in which we asked the experts to rate the previously collected items for teaching objectives, teaching contents, teaching methods, and assessment methods with regards to their (subjective) desirability. Each item could be rated on a scale from 1 (not desirable) to 10 (highly desirable). We decided to use a 10-point Likert scale to allow the experts to provide clearly distinguishable ratings for the degree of desirability, after all items were considered as desirable, in the first Delphi stage, by the panel as a whole. For the second stage of the study, we used the software Calibrum, which is suitable for conducting real-time Delphi studies.
A reminder was sent on 12 September 2023, and the survey was closed on 22 September 2023, as previously announced. Twenty-four respondents provided their ratings, whereas some respondents dropped out during the survey. For example, 16 (not 17) teaching objectives were rated by all 24 experts, whereas in the last curricular section—the assessment methods—the items were rated by 22 participants, and the demographic questions were answered by 21 respondents. Obviously, the questionnaire was somewhat long—and too long for some participants.
The panel characteristics are summarized in Table 2. From the panel demographics, it can be concluded that the panel of the second Delphi stage is not an exact subset of the panel of the first stage, i.e., some experts from the first stage did not participate in the second stage but some experts from the whole sample who had not participated in the first stage did so in the second stage. The panels’ average teaching experience in entrepreneurship education in the second stage was 20.1 years and their average research experience in the field was 18.7 years. Again, all participants had a minimum of five years of either teaching or researching in entrepreneurship education.

3.6. Data Analysis (Stage 2)

For each item, we used the median of all given ratings between 1 and 10. As common for Delphi studies, the median was chosen as it is more robust to outliers than the arithmetic mean [108]. In addition, the group stability, with values between 0 and 100 percent, is used as a consensus measure. If all respondents had given the same rating, the group stability would have been 100 percent. For no item, the stability value is below 50 percent, showing that there is no severe dissent for any item. In fact, the highest consensus values are 82.0 percent for teaching objectives, 80.5 percent for teaching contents, 88.3 percent for teaching methods, and 84.1 percent for assessment methods, while the average consensus values are 71.8 percent for teaching objectives, 68.3 percent for teaching contents, 67.4 percent for teaching methods, and 70.1 percent for assessment methods, indicating quite high group consensuses.
To rank the items in the four sections, we sorted the items by descending median and, when the median was identical, by descending group stability. This way, the desirability value is the predominant variable, but a decreasing consensus on this desirability value weakens the item’s relevance.

4. Results

As we asked for desirable teaching objectives, teaching contents, teaching methods, and assessment methods in the first Delphi stage, it is no surprise that not a single item was rated as undesirable (median below 6) in the second stage. However, due to the wide rating scale and the calculation of the group stabilities, finer differentiations in the extent of desirability and relevance can be identified. Due to the high overall number of 74 items and the limited space, we focus on those with the highest and lowest ranks.
Table 3 shows the ranked items for teaching objectives. Not surprisingly, the two highest ranking address the two fundamental objectives of an entrepreneurship education: acquiring entrepreneurial knowledge and developing entrepreneurial skills. Rank 3, becoming more creative or innovative, can be interpreted as a sub-set of entrepreneurial skills, confirming their high relevance. While the value difference between the first and second rank is quite small, it is still worth mentioning that knowledge has received a slightly higher relevance than skills. The next three ranks with the highest median of 9 refer to the application of entrepreneurship to solve grand challenges, linking entrepreneurial activities to a higher meaning or purpose, and to a commitment to sustainability. However, the sustainable orientation of entrepreneurship received a significantly lower consensus.
Interestingly, the application of AI in entrepreneurial endeavors (rank 17) received the lowest median of 6, but with a low consensus value as well. Also, the other lower ranks address aspects of digital entrepreneurship [109,110,111,112], such as understanding the fundamentals of digital/disruptive technologies (rank 16) and the application of digital tools in entrepreneurial endeavors (rank 15), which are still seen as relevant, but with the lowest desirability of the given teaching objective items.
The ranked items for teaching contents are shown in Table 4. Of the 17 items, two received the highest median of 9, namely ethics for entrepreneurship and environmental entrepreneurship. The more traditional item, entrepreneurial methods, tools, and techniques, received the highest consensus, with a comparably high median of 8. Again, AI was positioned as the last ranking (17), with a median of 6 and a somewhat low consensus rate.
The teaching method items are ranked in Table 5. Among the 25 items, interactive, participatory, or dialogic teaching methods received the highest median of 10, which was only given once in the whole Delphi study across all curricular sections. The group stability is also the highest found in the study. Setting up a (small) real venture, as a holistic form of an experiential [113,114,115], or more precisely, a teaching-through-entrepreneurship approach that is student-centered and requires real-life contexts facing real problems and risks [116,117], received a median of 9.
The two items with the lowest median of 6 refer to business plans—either in the form of participating in a business plan competition (rank 25) or writing a business plan (rank 24)—which, considering the wide-spread use of these techniques, is quite surprising. The lowest median of 6 also was given to online entrepreneurial education and blended learning.
Finally, the ranked items for assessment methods are depicted in Table 6. Among the 15 items, two received the highest median of 9. In particular, the panel ranked class participation in first place and formative assessments in second. The lowest ranks refer to participation in accelerator programs and written internship reports, both with a median of 6.

5. Discussion

The Delphi study aimed to identify and rank favorable curricular items for higher entrepreneurship education, from the perspective of entrepreneurship education researchers.
Among the proposed objectives, contents, and teaching as well as assessment methods, several items are already regularly covered in current curricula [50]. Their appearance in this Delphi study confirms their significant relevance. In the following, we stress the highly rated, more novel curricular items that have been proposed by the expert panel.
In the objectives dimension, solving grand challenges relates to the notion that entrepreneurial thinking and acting can also be used in not-for-profit contexts. After management scholarship has started to address such challenges that are located beyond the usual business context and address big societal questions [118,119], it seems that (social) entrepreneurship may be a specific and promising approach for implementation [120,121,122]. Linking entrepreneurial activities to a higher meaning or purpose is in line with this thought, but could also address “smaller” issues. Similarly, using entrepreneurship in government and public authorities has been proposed by the expert panel. The idea behind this is that entrepreneurship can contribute to higher innovativeness, efficiency, and welfare [123,124]. These items emphasize that entrepreneurship education can also have a high value for students who do not see their professional future as startup founders.
In the content dimension, the use of strategic foresight for entrepreneurship has been proposed. Strategic foresight explores the various scenarios that may unfold in the future, particularly to increase organizations’ preparedness, adaptability, and innovativeness [125,126,127,128,129,130,131]. In the entrepreneurship context, this approach is not yet well-established [132,133,134]. As entrepreneurship is strongly related to high uncertainty [135,136], it is indeed useful for entrepreneurship education to include such content in their curricula. Another topic that is not yet well-represented in current curricula is female/women entrepreneurship. This topic has already attracted considerable attention in entrepreneurship research and addresses gender differences in entrepreneurship [137,138,139,140,141]. In contrast, entrepreneurship education only starts to cover the empirical insights of this research.
In the teaching methods dimension, value creation pedagogy has been proposed as a methodological approach for teaching entrepreneurship. Even though value creation is a core concept in entrepreneurship [142,143,144], the roots of value creation pedagogy lie outside entrepreneurship education and, therefore, do not address value creation for customers but for the students and for others [145]. However, thinking in terms of value creation appears highly suitable for entrepreneurship education, especially as it connects individual development and venture creation in a meaningful way [145,146].
In the assessment methods dimension, it became obvious that entrepreneurial activities cannot only act as teaching but also assessment methods, as the performance during the activity or its results can be assessed. Apart from specific methods, formal aspects have also been proposed. Interestingly, oral or written real-time assessments appear among the curricular items in order to enable the elimination of AI use, which has become more problematic since the introduction of ChatGPT and other generative AI tools to the public [147,148]. This can be seen being as in line with the high ranking of interactive, participatory, and dialogic teaching in the teaching methods dimension.
The findings contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship education in several ways. First, they stress the curricular dimension of entrepreneurship education. Whereas the vast majority of entrepreneurship education research is concerned with the impact or effects of entrepreneurship education [25,50], this study does not focus on the outcome but on entrepreneurship education itself. Second, previous entrepreneurial curriculum research has asked, from an analytical view: how is entrepreneurship being taught? Extending this view, we ask, from a normative perspective: how should entrepreneurship be taught? This added perspective is valuable, as the current teaching practice is not necessarily the best possible or imaginable. Third, within the identified favorable curricular items, a more refined distinction of the desirable items is provided by the ranking.
The findings also have practical implications for higher entrepreneurship education. First, it has to be stressed again that the 74 items were proposed in the first Delphi stage and, consequently, all of them were regarded as desirable in the second stage. As a consequence, curriculum designers for entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship educators are well-advised to consider all items. However, when teaching capacities are restricted, the more highly ranked items should receive the highest attention. Second, the four curricular sections contain both established items and more novel items or those that received comparably lower attention in the past. To advance entrepreneurship education and possibly further increase student motivation, particular emphasis should be given to the latter ones.
As with all research, our study comes with some limitations. First, even though the number of participants in the first and second stage of this study were in the usual range of Delphi surveys [104,105], it is possible that larger panels would have revealed further notions of improvement in entrepreneurship education programs. This also corresponds to the second limitation: the expert panel had a certain Western bias. We tried to avoid this with our global search for entrepreneurship education researchers, but it seems that entrepreneurship education research, as represented by the original sample who had published at least three papers on entrepreneurship education, is currently dominated by scholars from Western countries. A separate study focusing on African, Asian, and/or South American researchers alone could add interesting insights due to different cultural and entrepreneurial contexts. Third, we asked only entrepreneurship education researchers but not entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs who actually practice entrepreneurship, rather than theorizing and teaching about it, could also yield new ideas and different opinions about the desirability of curricular items. Such research that follows this approach can also use different methodologies than Delphi studies, such as qualitative interviews. Fourth, we treated entrepreneurship education as a “homogeneous good” [50]. However, the design of an entrepreneurship education program, particularly at the graduate level, has to consider the different prior knowledge bases of their students, such as business administrators, engineers, natural scientists, or many more. In addition, different students have different objectives. For example, a startup founder may have different requirements than a child of a business owner who intends to become their successor or a corporate manager who is interested in building a spin-off. Further, entrepreneurship education can take place at different educational levels with different levels of complexity: apart from the graduate level, there is also undergraduate, secondary, and possibly even primary education. Therefore, future research could distinguish between different kinds of entrepreneurship education. Fifth, in line with the Delphi study design and also with the normative research goal of the identification and ranking of desirable curricular items, we asked for subjective perspectives and not “the truth”. In other words, the experts expect the provided items to be useful for entrepreneurship education, but it is not yet clear if they really are. This can only be assessed by future empirical research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.T. and M.W.; methodology, V.T.; software, V.T.; formal analysis, V.T.; investigation, V.T.; writing—original draft preparation, V.T.; writing—review and editing, V.T.; supervision, M.W; funding acquisition (APC), V.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—projekt no. 491466077.

Institutional Review Board Statement

For this research, approval from the ethics commission of the corresponding author’s university was neither needed nor possible as it did not involve any psychological, medical or clinical experimentation or other ethically relevant human research.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bae, T.J.; Qian, S.; Miao, C.; Fiet, J.O. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta–analytic review. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 217–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fayolle, A.; Gailly, B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Maresch, D.; Harms, R.; Kailer, N.; Wimmer-Wurm, B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 104, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Martínez-Gregorio, S.; Badenes-Ribera, L.; Oliver, A. Effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship intention and related outcomes in educational contexts: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mei, H.; Lee, C.H.; Xiang, Y. Entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial intention in higher education. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Núñez-Canal, M.; Sanz Ponce, R.; Azqueta, A.; Montoro-Fernández, E. How Effective Is Entrepreneurship Education in Schools? An Empirical Study of the New Curriculum in Spain. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Piperopoulos, P.; Dimov, D. Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 970–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rauch, A.; Hulsink, W. Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2015, 14, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sánchez, J.C. The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Y.; Duysters, G.; Cloodt, M. The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2014, 10, 623–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aly, M.; Audretsch, D.B.; Grimm, H. Emotional skills for entrepreneurial success: The promise of entrepreneurship education and policy. J. Technol. Transf. 2021, 46, 1611–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hahn, D.; Minola, T.; Bosio, G.; Cassia, L. The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students’ entrepreneurial skills: A family embeddedness perspective. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 257–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jardim, J. Entrepreneurial skills to be successful in the global and digital world: Proposal for a frame of reference for entrepreneurial education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oosterbeek, H.; Van Praag, M.; Ijsselstein, A. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2010, 54, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Acs, Z.J.; Szerb, L. Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Bus. Econ. 2007, 28, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Galindo, M.Á.; Méndez, M.T. Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work? J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 825–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Small business and entrepreneurship: Their role in economic and social development. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2017, 29, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Praag, C.M.; Versloot, P.H. What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Bus. Econ. 2007, 29, 351–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wennekers, S.; Thurik, R. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Bus. Econ. 1999, 13, 27–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hägg, G.; Schölin, T. The policy influence on the development of entrepreneurship in higher education: A Swedish perspective. Educ. + Train. 2018, 60, 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hoppe, M. Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Bus. Econ. 2016, 46, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mei, W.; Symaco, L. University-wide entrepreneurship education in China’s higher education institutions: Issues and challenges. Stud. High. Educ. 2022, 47, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. O’Connor, A. A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 546–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fellnhofer, K. Toward a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education research literature: A bibliometric mapping and visualization. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 27, 28–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tiberius, V.; Weyland, M. Entrepreneurship education or entrepreneurship education? A bibliometric analysis. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2023, 47, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Afeli, S.A.; Adunlin, G. Curriculum content for innovation and entrepreneurship education in US pharmacy programs. Ind. High. Educ. 2022, 36, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Béchard, J.P.; Toulouse, J.M. Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 1998, 13, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Canziani, B.F.; Welsh, D.H. How entrepreneurship influences other disciplines: An examination of learning goals. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hytti, U.; O’Gorman, C. What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Educ. + Train. 2004, 46, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Katz, J.A.; Hanke, R.; Maidment, F.; Weaver, K.M.; Alpi, S. Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2016, 12, 487–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pittaway, L.; Edwards, C. Assessment: Examining practice in entrepreneurship education. Educ. + Train. 2012, 54, 778–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ramsgaard, M.B.; Østergaard, S.J. An entrepreneurial learning approach to assessment of internships. Educ. + Train. 2018, 60, 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rasmussen, R.M. Assessment for learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education. In Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Education; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tiberius, V.; Weyland, M.; Mahto, R.V. Best of entrepreneurship education? A curriculum analysis of the highest-ranking entrepreneurship MBA programs. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023, 21, 100753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lattuca, L.R.; Stark, J.S. Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Context; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Filser, M.; Tiberius, V.; Kraus, S.; Zeitlhofer, T.; Kailer, N.; Müller, A. Opportunity recognition: Conversational foundations and pathways ahead. Entrep. Res. J. 2020, 13, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Paul, J.; Jaiswal, M.P. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hota, P.K.; Subramanian, B.; Narayanamurthy, G. Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 166, 89–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Garud, R.; Hardy, C.; Maguire, S. Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organ. Stud. 2007, 28, 957–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hardy, C.; Maguire, S. Institutional entrepreneurship and change in fields. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism; Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B., Meyer, R.E., Eds.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2017; pp. 198–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Maguire, S.; Hardy, C.; Lawrence, T.B. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 657–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tiberius, V.; Rietz, M.; Bouncken, R.B. Performance analysis and science mapping of institutional entrepreneurship research. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cui, J.; Sun, J.; Bell, R. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial mindset of college students in China: The mediating role of inspiration and the role of educational attributes. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Igwe, P.A.; Okolie, U.C.; Nwokoro, C.V. Towards a responsible entrepreneurship education and the future of the workforce. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morris, M.H.; Webb, J.W.; Fu, J.; Singhal, S. A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51, 352–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kirby, D.A. Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Educ. + Train. 2004, 46, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Iyortsuun, A.S.; Goyit, M.G.; Dakung, R.J. Entrepreneurship education programme, passion and attitude towards self-employment. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 13, 64–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tiberius, V.; Weyland, M. Identifying constituent elements of entrepreneurship curricula: A systematic literature review. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alberti, F.; Sciascia, S.; Poli, A. Entrepreneurship Education: Notes on an Ongoing Debate. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy, 4–7 July 2004; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  52. Fayolle, A.; Gailly, B. From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2008, 32, 569–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mwasalwiba, E.S. Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Educ. + Train. 2010, 52, 20–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Albort-Morant, G.; Oghazi, P. How useful are incubators for new entrepreneurs? J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2125–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Deyanova, K.; Brehmer, N.; Lapidus, A.; Tiberius, V.; Walsh, S. Hatching start-ups for sustainable growth: A bibliometric review on business incubators. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 16, 2083–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Guerrero, M.; Urbano, D.; Gajón, E. Entrepreneurial university ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: Do entrepreneurship education programmes and university business incubators matter? J. Manag. Dev. 2020, 39, 753–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kremel, A.; Wetter Edman, K. Implementing design thinking as didactic method in entrepreneurship education. The importance of through. Design J. 2019, 22, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rösch, N.; Tiberius, V.; Kraus, S. Designing thinking for innovation: Antecedents, process, and outcomes. Europ. J. Innov. Manag. 2023, 26, 160–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Woudenberg, F. An Evaluation of Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1991, 40, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rowe, G.; Wright, G.; Bolger, F. The Delphi technique: A re-evaluation of research and theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1991, 39, 235–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dalkey, N.; Helmer, O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 1963, 9, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Skulmoski, G.; Hartman, F.; Krahn, J. The Delphi method for graduate research. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. 2007, 6, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gnatzy, T.; Warth, J.; von der Gracht, H.; Darkow, I.L. Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach-A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 1681–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gordon, T.; Pease, A. RT Delphi: An efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Landeta, J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Flostrand, A.; Pitt, L.; Bridson, S. The Delphi technique in forecasting—A 42-year bibliographic analysis (1975–2017). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cobben, D.; Ooms, W.; Roijakkers, N. Indicators for innovation ecosystem health: A Delphi study. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 162, 113860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gassmann, S.E.; Nunkoo, R.; Tiberius, V.; Kraus, S. My home is your castle: Forecasting the future of accommodation sharing. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 467–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Höhne, S.; Tiberius, V. Powered by blockchain: Forecasting blockchain use in the electricity market. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2020, 14, 1221–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kagias, P.; Sariannidis, N.; Garefalakis, A.; Passas, I.; Kyriakogkonas, P. Validating the Whistleblowing Maturity Model Using the Delphi Method. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mohd Noor, N.; Rasli, A.; Abdul Rashid, M.A.; Mubarak, M.F.; Abas, I.H. Ranking of Corporate Governance Dimensions: A Delphi Study. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Peng, K.-Y.; Liao, H.-L. A Study on the Key Factors of CSR Indicators for Tenderers in Procurement Screening Using the Delphi Method and DEMATEL-Based Analytic Network Process. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Prommer, L.; Tiberius, V.; Kraus, S. Exploring the future of startup leadership development. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 14, e00200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Studen, L.; Tiberius, V. Social Media, Quo Vadis? Prospective Development and Implications. Future Internet 2020, 12, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tiberius, V.; Borning, J.; Seeler, S. Setting the table for meat consumers: An international Delphi study on in vitro meat. npj Sci. Food 2019, 3, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tiberius, V.; Hauptmeijer, R. Equity crowdfunding: Forecasting market development, platform evolution, and regulation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 59, 337–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tiberius, V.; Gojowy, R.; Dabić, M. Forecasting the future of robo advisory: A three-stage Delphi study on economic, technological, and societal implications. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 182, 121824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. van Dyck, M.; Lüttgens, D.; Piller, F.T.; Brenk, S. Interconnected digital twins and the future of digital manufacturing: Insights from a Delphi study. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2023, 40, 475–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. van Gelderen, M.; Wiklund, J.; McMullen, J.S. Entrepreneurship in the future: A Delphi study of ETP and JBV editorial board members. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2021, 45, 1239–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Alahlafi, A.; Burge, S. What should undergraduate medical students know about psoriasis? Involving patients in curriculum development: Modified Delphi technique. BMJ 2005, 330, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Clayton, R.; Perera, R.; Burge, S. Defining the dermatological content of the undergraduate medical curriculum: A modified Delphi study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2006, 155, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Edgren, G. Developing a competence-based core curriculum in biomedical laboratory science: A Delphi study. Med. Teach. 2006, 28, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Moercke, A.M.; Eika, B. What are the clinical skills levels of newly graduated physicians? Self-assessment study of an intended curriculum identified by a Delphi process. Med. Educ. 2002, 36, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Rohan, D.; Ahern, S.; Walsh, K. Defining an anaesthetic curriculum for medical undergraduates. A Delphi study. Med. Teach. 2009, 31, e1–e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Turner, G.H.; Weiner, D.K. Essential components of a medical student curriculum on chronic pain management in older adults: Results of a modified Delphi process. Pain Med. 2002, 3, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ab Wahid, R.; Grigg, N.P. A draft framework for quality management system auditor education: Findings from the initial stage of a Delphi study. TQM J. 2021, 33, 1373–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ab Wahid, R.; Grigg, N.P. QMS external quality auditors’ education framework: Findings from an iterative Delphi study. TQM J. 2022, 34, 1320–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bisschoff, Z.S.; Massyn, L. Incorporating corporate social responsibility into graduate employability. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2023, 27, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Coetzer, A.; Sitlington, H. What knowledge, skills and attitudes should strategic HRM students acquire? A Delphi study. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2014, 52, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nguyen, A.T. Industry 4.0 competencies: A model for the Vietnamese workforce. Ind. Commer. Train. 2022, 54, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Reeves, G.; Jauch, L.R. Curriculum development through Delphi. Res. High. Educ. 1978, 8, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sitlington, H.; Coetzer, A. Using the Delphi technique to support curriculum development. Educ. + Train. 2015, 57, 306–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tiberius, V.; Hoffmeister, L.; Weyland, M. Prospective shifts in executive education: An international Delphi study. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Van Eynde, D.F.; Tucker, S.L. A quality human resource curriculum: Recommendations from leading senior HR executives. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1997, 36, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wu, Y.J.; Chen, J.C. Stimulating innovation with an innovative curriculum: A curriculum design for a course on new product development. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kaartemo, V.; Coviello, N.; Zettinig, P. International entrepreneurship as an admittance-seeking educational field. J. Teach. Int. Bus. 2018, 29, 185–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Devaney, L.; Henchion, M. Who is a Delphi ‘expert’? Reflections on a bioeconomy expert selection procedure from Ireland. Futures 2018, 99, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rowe, G.; Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15, 353–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Spickermann, A.; Zimmermann, M.; von der Gracht, H.A. Surface-and deep-level diversity in panel selection—Exploring diversity effects on response behaviour in foresight. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 85, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Welty, G. Problems of selecting experts for Delphi exercises. Acad. Manag. J. 1972, 15, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 871–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. J. Informetr. 2007, 1, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Gordon, T.J. The Delphi Method. AC/UNU Millenium Project. 1994. Available online: https://eumed-agpol.iamm.fr/private/priv_docum/wp5_files/5-delphi.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  106. Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  107. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  108. Hill, K.Q.; Fowles, J. The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting technique. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1975, 7, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kraus, S.; Palmer, C.; Kailer, N.; Kallinger, F.L.; Spitzer, J. Digital entrepreneurship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 353–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Nambisan, S. Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 1029–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Paul, J.; Alhassan, I.; Binsaif, N.; Singh, P. Digital entrepreneurship research: A systematic review. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sahut, J.M.; Iandoli, L.; Teulon, F. The age of digital entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2021, 56, 1159–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Awaysheh, A.; Bonfiglio, D. Leveraging experiential learning to incorporate social entrepreneurship in MBA programs: A case study. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2017, 15, 332–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bell, R.; Bell, H. Applying educational theory to develop a framework to support the delivery of experiential entrepreneurship education. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2020, 27, 987–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Motta, V.F.; Galina, S.V.R. Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 121, 103919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chaker, H.; Jarraya, H. Combining teaching “about” and “through” entrepreneurship: A practice to develop students’ entrepreneurial competencies. Ind. High. Educ. 2021, 35, 432–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jamieson, I. Schools and Enterprise; Watts, A.G., Moran, P., Eds.; Education for Enterprise, Careers Research and Advisory Centre: Cambridge, UK, 1984; pp. 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  118. Ferraro, F.; Etzion, D.; Gehman, J. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organ. Stud. 2015, 36, 363–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. George, G.; Howard-Grenville, J.; Joshi, A.; Tihanyi, L. Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 1880–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bacq, S.; Geoghegan, W.; Josefy, M.; Stevenson, R.; Williams, T.A. The COVID-19 Virtual Idea Blitz: Marshaling social entrepreneurship to rapidly respond to urgent grand challenges. Bus. Horiz. 2020, 63, 705–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Markman, G.D.; Waldron, T.L.; Gianiodis, P.T.; Espina, M.I. E pluribus unum: Impact entrepreneurship as a solution to grand challenges. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 33, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ricciardi, F.; Rossignoli, C.; Zardini, A. Grand challenges and entrepreneurship: Emerging issues, research streams, and theoretical landscape. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2021, 17, 1673–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Irani, Z.; Elliman, T. Creating social entrepreneurship in local government. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zerbinati, S.; Souitaris, V. Entrepreneurship in the public sector: A framework of analysis in European local governments. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2005, 17, 43–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gorupec, N.; Brehmer, N.; Tiberius, V.; Kraus, S. Tackling uncertain future scenarios with real options: A review and research framework. Ir. J. Manag. 2022, 41, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rohrbeck, R.; Battistella, C.; Huizingh, E. Corporate foresight: An emerging field with a rich tradition. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 101, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Rohrbeck, R.; Gemünden, H.G. Corporate foresight: Its three roles in enhancing the innovation capacity of a firm. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Semke, L.M.; Tiberius, V. Corporate foresight and dynamic capabilities: An exploratory study. Forecasting 2020, 2, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Tiberius, V.; Siglow, C.; Sendra-García, J. Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Vecchiato, R. Creating value through foresight: First mover advantages and strategic agility. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 101, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Vecchiato, R.; Roveda, C. Strategic foresight in corporate organizations: Handling the effect and response uncertainty of technology and social drivers of change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 1527–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Djuricic, K.; Bootz, J.P. Effectuation and foresight–An exploratory study of the implicit links between the two concepts. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 140, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Fuller, T.; Warren, L. Entrepreneurship as foresight: A complex social network perspective on organisational foresight. Futures 2006, 38, 956–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rhisiart, M.; Jones-Evans, D. The impact of foresight on entrepreneurship: The Wales 2010 case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 102, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Brouwer, M. Entrepreneurship and uncertainty: Innovation and competition among the many. Small Bus. Econ. 2000, 15, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Koudstaal, M.; Sloof, R.; Van Praag, M. Risk, uncertainty, and entrepreneurship: Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment. Manag. Sci. 2016, 62, 2897–2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Deng, W.; Liang, Q.; Li, J.; Wang, W. Science mapping: A bibliometric analysis of female entrepreneurship studies. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 36, 61–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Gawel, A.; Głodowska, A. On the relationship between economic dynamics and female entrepreneurship: Reflections for the visegrad countries. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Poggesi, S.; Mari, M.; De Vita, L. What’s new in female entrepreneurship research? Answers from the literature. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2016, 12, 735–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ribes-Giner, G.; Moya-Clemente, I.; Cervelló-Royo, R.; Perello-Marin, M.R. Domestic economic and social conditions empowering female entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ughetto, E.; Rossi, M.; Audretsch, D.; Lehmann, E.E. Female entrepreneurship in the digital era. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Amit, R.; Han, X. Value creation through novel resource configurations in a digitally enabled world. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2017, 11, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hechavarría, D.M.; Terjesen, S.A.; Ingram, A.E.; Renko, M.; Justo, R.; Elam, A. Taking care of business: The impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended value creation goals. Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 48, 225–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Narayanan, V.K.; Yang, Y.; Zahra, S.A. Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 58–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Jones, C.; Penaluna, K.; Penaluna, A. Value creation in entrepreneurial education: Towards a unified approach. Educ. + Train. 2020, 63, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Bell, R. Developing entrepreneurial behaviours in the Chinese classroom through value creation pedagogy. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2022, 59, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Lim, W.M.; Gunasekara, A.; Pallant, J.L.; Pallant, J.I.; Pechenkina, E. Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023, 21, 100790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Morreel, S.; Mathysen, D.; Verhoeven, V. Aye, AI! ChatGPT passes multiple-choice family medicine exam. Med. Teach. 2023, 45, 665–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
The Pernicious Predictability of State-Mandated Tests of Academic Achievement in the United States
Previous
Course Crafting in the Pandemic: Examination of Students’ Positive Experiences
Next