Creating the MIT entrepreneurial ecosystem

Fishman, Elliot A.; O’Shea, Rory P.; Allen, Thomas J.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139046930.006

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the highest slope, those activities seem to stand out due to their availability (not all universities have specific student bodies, for instance). Co-curricular activities are recognized by their role in creating university-based ecosystems (Fishman et al, 2014) since they offer incentives (sometimes financial) and support in the form of mentorship, office space, specific programs and training. By attracting and filtering potential students, they can trigger connections, inspiration and guidance over the entrepreneurial career.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Universities can offer professional experience through research internships as well, being valuable when it comes to developing a systematic and hypothesis-driven mentality or specific science-related skills that could be useful in hightechnology ventures (Ribeiro et al, 2018;Roberts et al, 2015). Another common co-curricular offering is the business plan competition (Preedy and Jones, 2015;Taatila, 2010;Toutain et al, 2017), which is recognized by its effectiveness in creating entrepreneurial ecosystems within universities due to financial incentives and support to entrepreneurial students (Fishman et al, 2014). Mentorship activities provided by professors or institutional bodies are also a cocurricular practice well established within the literature (Jansen et al, 2015;Mandel and Noyes, 2016;Padilla-Angulo, 2017;Preedy and Jones, 2015;Ribeiro et al, 2018;Roberts et al, 2015).…”

Section: Institutional Co-curricular Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The question of where: entrepreneurship education beyond curricular practices

Ribeiro

Borini

Plonski

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article aims at the understanding of specific spaces where entrepreneurship education (EE) happens – inside and outside the classroom.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on frameworks such as formal versus non-formal entrepreneurial education and institutional versus non-institutional actors, this research applies structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore which spaces entrepreneurs attended as undergraduate students. Going beyond intentionality, the authors collected data from 175 respondents in Brazil, all of the respondents are entrepreneurs whose companies are at least one year old.FindingsResults demonstrate that student-led activities are as important as institutional ones when training future entrepreneurs, while specific in-classroom activities feature the lowest impact among the institutional ones.Research limitations/implicationsSample size and characteristics could impact the generalization power, but, since the results fit within research criteria, researchers can benefit by reflecting over new research horizons, going beyond classroom studies and understanding the university as an ecosystem of learning interventions.Practical implicationsResults can be useful to university managers when designing institutional policies, fostering a diverse set of undergraduate experiences towards entrepreneurship training.Originality/valueAlthough current literature has focused on classroom education, researchers have been pointing out the need of stepping out of the classroom, analyzing other spaces such as student-led movements, co-curricular programs and more.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%