Advertisement

Schwellenkonzepte in der Entrepreneurship Education – ein Identifizierungsansatz anhand von Denkrichtungen und Praxisfeldern

  • Andreas LieningEmail author
  • Jan-Martin Geiger
  • Ronald Kriedel
  • Till Sender
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Entrepreneurship Education sieht sich mit der Kritik konfrontiert, oftmals zu losgelöst von didaktischen Überlegungen betrachtet zu werden. Neben dem Aufwerfen der grundsätzlichen Frage, welche konstituierenden Charakteristika Entrepreneurship aufweist, wird anhand des Schwellenkonzeptansatzes eine Bestimmung zentraler Facetten für entrepreneuriales Denken und Handeln vorgenommen. Auf diese Weise wird eine didaktisch geleitete Gestaltung von entsprechenden Lernarrangements aufgezeigt, die der Forderung nach der Auffassung von Entrepreneurship als eigene Disziplin gerecht wird.

Literatur

  1. Alvarez, S. A. (2005). Theories of Entrepreneuship: Alternative assumptions and the study of entrepreneurial action. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 105–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barradell, S. (2013). The identification of threshold concepts: A review of theoretical complexities and methodological challenges. Higher Education, 65(2), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolinger, A. R., & Brown, K. D. (2015). Entrepreneurial failure as a threshold concept: The effects of student experiences. Journal of Management Education, 39(4), 452–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, T. C., & Hanlon, D. (2014). Behavioral criteria for grounding entrepreneurship education and training programs: A validation study. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. (2016). Unternehmergeist in die Schulen. http://www.unternehmergeist-macht-schule.de/DE/Initiativen/initiativen_node.html;jsessionid=521822C0686955701894CAB49207F1F5. Zugegriffen am 10.03.2015.
  8. Byrne, J., Fayolle, A., Toutain, O., Chell, E., & Karatas-Özkan, M. (2014). Entrepreneurship education: What we know and what we need to know. In E. Elgar, Handbook of research in entrepreneurship and small business (S. 261–288). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Chandler, G. N., DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Mumford, T. V. (2011). Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17, 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daily, C. M., McDougall, P. P., Covin, J. G., & Dalton, D. R. (2002). Governance and strategic leadership in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management, 28(3), 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies, P., & Mangan, J. (2007). Threshold concepts and the integration of understanding in economics. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 711–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drucker, P. F. (2014/1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: HarperCollins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7/8), 692–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1019–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibb, A. (2000). Corporate restructuring and entrepreneurship: What can large organizations learn from small? Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Govindarajan, V. (2016). The three-box solution. A strategy for leading innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A Model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(1), 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(5), 577–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Covin, J. G. (2011). Corporate, innovation & entrepreneurship. Mason: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  24. Lahn, S. (2015). Der Businessplan in Theorie und Praxis: Überlegungen zu einem zentralen Instrument der deutschen Gründungsförderung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Land, R., Meyer, J. H. F., & Smith, J. (2008). Threshold concepts within the disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levie, J., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2010). A terminal assessment of stages theory: Introducing a dynamic states approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34(2), 317–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lichtenstein, B. B., Carter, N. M., Dooley, K. J., & Gartner, W. B. (2007). Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 236–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003a). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Hrsg.), Improving student learning. Improving student learning theory and practice – 10 years on (S. 412–424). Oxford: OCSLD.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003b). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. In Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines occasional report (Bd. 4). Coventry and Durham: ETL Project.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris, M. H., Lewis, P. S., & Sexton, D. L. (1994). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurship: An input-output perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 59, 21–21.Google Scholar
  34. Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing under uncertainty: The logic of an effectual approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowbottom, D. P. (2007). Demystifying threshold concepts. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(2), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation – Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  41. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 23(3), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, K. G., & Di Gregorio, D. (2002). Bisociation, discovery, and the role of entrepreneurial action. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, M. Camp, & D. Sexton (Hrsg.), Strategic entrepreneurship. Creating a new mindset. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3(1), 119–138.Google Scholar
  44. Vosniadou, S. (2009). International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright, A. L., & Gilmore, A. (2012). Threshold concepts and conceptions student Learning in introductory management courses. Journal of Management Education, 36(5), 614–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yip, J., & Raelin, J. A. (2012). Threshold concepts and modalities for teaching leadership practice. Management Learning, 43(3), 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Liening
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan-Martin Geiger
    • 1
  • Ronald Kriedel
    • 1
  • Till Sender
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität DortmundDortmundDeutschland

Personalised recommendations