Purpose -This study aims to highlight the entrepreneurship education practices teachers use in their work. Another target is to analyze how these practices differ based on a number of background factors. Design/methodology/approach -This article presents a quantitative analysis of 521 teachers and other entrepreneurship education actors. The paper first examines the overall picture of entrepreneurship education practices. Then, after a factor analysis, the paper builds new sum measures of entrepreneurship education practices. Finally, the paper studies the teachers' background information to further analyze the entrepreneurship education practices.Findings -The findings provide information on which methods appear to be used the most frequently in basic and upper secondary education, and how these practices vary between different school levels. The results also indicate that the perception teachers have of their own entrepreneurship education skills is closely connected to the implementation of entrepreneurship education. Moreover, the findings present the connection between teacher training and the implementation of entrepreneurship education. Originality/value -Teachers' entrepreneurship education practices and related teaching and working methods are important in many respects. As research has primarily focused on higher education where the transferability of the results to basic and upper secondary education seems vague, this paper concentrates on the teachers' role and especially their practices in lower education. The authors consider that their article has a special value in exploring and opening dialogue in this area.

No abstract

Innovation processes can be regarded as complex, dynamic, and a result of cumulative dynamic interaction and learning processes involving many actors. In this setting, private small-and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) can be considered a key factor -as generators of new ideas, as entrepreneurs carrying out new ventures, and as partners for other local actors.This study focuses on the SME networks and their ability to participate in innovative processes directed at new value creation. We present a case study of the development of a young innovation network. Our focus in the case study is on the SME's ability to carry out innovation and new value creation in a network. The key contribution of the study centers on the new understanding of the way SME innovation could be promoted through facilitated network development.

No abstract

The purpose of this study is to add to the literature on entrepreneurial university ecosystems by highlighting the ways in which academics engage or decouple in entrepreneurship processes and thereby in the emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem. The study extends our understanding of the emergence of an entrepreneurial university ecosystem by providing an in-depth analysis of a Finnish university campus, investigating how individuals’ perceptions respond to societal and institutional demands for the fostering of entrepreneurship. The findings suggest that education and research are regarded as the highly institutionalized logics of universities, and these logics tend to be maintained since more rewards are associated with them than are associated with the logic of entrepreneurial actions. These competing logics lead to conflicting interests and cause intentional and unintentional decoupling in the adaptation and implementation of entrepreneurial actions in universities.

The recent theories of innovation suggest that there is great potential for innovation in the structural holes and weak links of the innovation system. Higher absorptive capacity enables an easier crossing over of structural holes in the innovation system, aided by social capital that is located in the social relationships of actors. However, the level of human and social interaction in regional innovation systems has been largely neglected as a research topic. Empirical research on a sample in the Lahti region in Finland suggested three forms of social capital: organisational bonding social capital, regional bridging social capital and personal creative social capital. Further analysis revealed three groups of actors’ interaction behaviour: Missionaries, House Mice and the Passive Resistance.

No abstract

No abstract