Over the past decade, entrepreneurship education (EE) has increasingly been introduced as a school-wide approach to stimulating an entrepreneurial mindset across various educational levels. We refer to this as “wide approaches to EE”. Wide approaches to EE require education programs that go beyond simply defining entrepreneurial competencies (the “what” question) and ask for learning activities that enable the enfolding, cultivation, and development of such competencies (the “how” question). Although important steps have been made with respect to addressing the “how” question, principles to actually design wide EE programs are scarce. Here, we advance the educational practice and research regarding wide EE by deducing design principles for wide EE programs across educational levels based on core theories in the entrepreneurship literature, including experiential learning, social constructivism, and effectuation theory. The 11 design principles represent the entrepreneurial process, the task, and the context and relationships of wide EE programs, and are discussed in three European cases from different educational levels in order to illustrate how the design principles can be used for understanding wide EE practices. The identified design principles can promote evidence-informed discussion among teachers, curriculum designers, policy-makers, scholars, and others regarding the design, implementation, and investigation of wide EE programs.

No abstract

Background: Clinician-scientists (CSs) are physicians who work in daily care and have an academic role in research or education. They may act as knowledge brokers and help to connect research and clinical practice. There is no data available on CSs' brokering activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to optimising their role in general practice (GP) and elderly care medicine (EM). Aim: To identify the brokering activities of CSs in these fields and the barriers and facilitators they come across whilst sharing knowledge and connecting people in research and frontline health care. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study among 17 Dutch senior CSs. Method: Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic interpretative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: CSs facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners. They exchange knowledge on both sides, make use of extensive networks and constantly and actively involve care in research and research in care. CSs come across barriers as well as facilitators that influence their brokering activities. Some barriers and facilitators are at the individual level, other are related more to the job context and workplace. Conclusions: This study reveals barriers to overcome and facilitators to develop related to the brokering role of CSs. To make the best use of CSs, brokering activities and the added value of CSs should be recognised and supported. Awareness of what CSs need to function effectively in demanding work settings could be important for the future impact of the role on the fields of GP and EM.

As economies become more innovation‐driven, the need for entrepreneurial behaviour amongst employees working for existing companies increases in order to enhance the organisations’ capacity to develop new ideas, products and services. Hence, entrepreneurial learning and the development of entrepreneurial competencies of employees on‐the‐job become more important. One of the most crucial competencies in this regard is the ability to identify potential business opportunities, referred to as opportunity identification competence (OIC). In this empirical study, antecedents of OIC were investigated in a small and medium‐sized business context. Based on the 3‐P (i.e. presage, process, product) model, specific learner, work environment, and process factors influencing OIC as an outcome variable were studied. More than 200 employees from 12 companies completed a questionnaire. Results of a backward regression analysis underline the importance of investing in programmes that focus on entrepreneurial learning at the shop floor level, trusting employees that they are capable of actively participating in the early stages of innovation and the crucial role of owner‐managers to support entrepreneurial employee activities.

Developing and assessing individuals' competence to identify business opportunities is of increasing importance in the current widespread introduction of entrepreneurship programmes in higher education worldwide. However, performance tests to assess opportunity identification competence (OIC) are scarce in the entrepreneurship education literature. This study elaborates on the development and application of such a performance assessment tool: the opportunity identification competence assessment test (OICAT). In the OICAT participants are asked to generate business ideas in the area of sustainable development. This study investigated how bachelor's students, and master's students following entrepreneurial courses, identify opportunities. The results suggest that the OICAT is successful in tracking individual differences in OIC. The OICAT could be used as a learning-oriented assessment, helping students find out both what they already can do and what they need for further improvement.

Clinician-scientists (CSs) are vital in connecting the worlds of research and practice. Yet, there is little empirical insight into how CSs perceive and act upon their in-and-between position between these socio-culturally distinct worlds. To better understand and support CSs’ training and career development, this study aims to gain insight into CSs’ social identity and brokerage. The authors conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 17, purposively sampled, CSs to elicit information on their social identity and brokerage. The CSs differ in how they perceive their social identity. Some CSs described their social identity strongly as either a research or clinical identity (dominant research or clinical identity). Other CSs described combined research and clinical identities, which might sometimes be compartmentalised, intersected or merged (non-dominant-identity). In the types of brokerage that they employ, all CSs act as representatives. CSs with a non-dominant identity mostly act as liaison and show considerable variability in their repertoire, including representative and gatekeeper. CSs with a dominant identity have less diversity in their brokerage types. Those with a dominant research identity typically act as a gatekeeper. Combining lenses of social identity theory and brokerage types helps understand CSs who have a dual position in-and-between the worlds of clinical practice and research. Professional development programs should explicitly address CSs’ professional identities and subsequent desired brokerage. Research and policy should aim to clarify and leverage the position of CSs in-and-between research and practice.

Purpose Clinician–scientists are said to be well placed to connect research and practice, but their broker role has been underexplored. This review sought to gain an understanding of the broker role of clinician–scientists. Method The authors conducted a realist review to describe context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations associated with the broker role of clinician–scientists. CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase were searched between May and August 2017. Data were analyzed qualitatively; data synthesis focused on assembling CMO configurations. Results Of an initial 2,241 articles, 9 were included in the final review. Included papers show that clinician–scientists, in their broker role, achieve 2 organizational-level outcomes: an increased volume of clinically relevant, research, and increased evidence application to improve care. They also achieve the individual-level outcome of professional development as a researcher, clinician, and broker. Multidimensional skills and management support are necessary context factors. Mechanisms that contribute to outcomes include balancing economic and scientific interests and performing boundary-crossing activities. Four CMO configurations by which clinician–scientists achieve outcomes in brokering a connection between research and practice were identified. Useful program theories for explaining these are boundary crossing, social network, communities of practice, and diffusion of innovation theory. Conclusions The mechanisms found may provide insight for interventions aiming to support clinician–scientists in their broker role. The authors expect that if more attention is paid to learning multidimensional skills and management support for the broker role is strengthened, stronger links between research and practice could be forged.

Today's working life is increasingly characterized by entrepreneurial challenges. Entrepreneurial challenges start at an individual level with the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities, which is acknowledged as one of the key competencies for lifelong learning. Since the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities relies heavily on the opportunity identification competence (OIC) of individuals, understanding the meaning of OIC is relevant. Until now, OIC has been explored in the young entrepreneurship research field. However, entrepreneurship researchers until now have not fully explored OIC. According to several authors, the research on complex problem solving (CPS) in the cognitive research field might contribute to understanding OIC. In this paper, we review the link between OIC and CPS by comparing the cognitive and entrepreneurship research fields. We argue that those who excel in identifying opportunities share core characteristics with high-level complex problemsolvers. We propose to conduct empirical research in the future to investigate the relation between OIC and CPS within a work context in order to gain more insight into OIC. We believe that the cognitive research field contributes to the entrepreneurship research field and provides a deeper understanding of the initial steps of the entrepreneurial process.