This paper focuses on how former collegiate student entrepreneurs define failure and compares
their definitions with how academic literature has traditionally defined entrepreneurial failure.
The article examines the context by which collegiate student entrepreneurs, and more
specifically student entrepreneurs who studied an engineering discipline, start their venture, and
how that influences their perceptions of what entrepreneurial failure is.
Entrepreneurial failure and its importance to the field of entrepreneurship is discussed almost as
frequently as entrepreneurial success. In fact, learning from failure and learning to fail quickly
as a means to assist in advancing toward success are often discussed as fundamental key
attributes of successful entrepreneurs. Despite this, factors that influence and contribute to
entrepreneurial success and how to increase entrepreneurial success through support mechanisms
are far more understood than methods that would help support entrepreneurs in learning from
failure, or finding ways to fail early and often in a way that helps them as opposed to
discouraging or demoralizing them. Given the rapid increase and interest within colleges of
engineering in introducing and exposing students to entrepreneurial experiences, and also in
developing programs that help students start entrepreneurial ventures, it is timely to better
understand the experiences of these student entrepreneurs, particularly the largest percentage of
them who started ventures that failed.
While the importance of learning from failure is often repeated in the literature, this paper
highlights distinct differences between how collegiate entrepreneurs define failure, compared
with more traditionally researched non-collegiate entrepreneurs, and also outlines how the
various contexts by which students become involved in an entrepreneurial endeavor influences
their perception of how failure is defined.
more »
« less
Qualitative Investigation on the Failure Experiences of Entrepreneurial Engineering Students
Entrepreneurial education has been rapidly expanding within universities over the past 15 years with colleges of engineering being amongst the most active participants in embedding entrepreneurship into curricular and cocurricular activities (Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Well-developed and theoretically grounded educational interventions have been shown to increase entrepreneurial skills and perception among students. (Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Matlay & Caray, 2007; Duval-Couetil & Wheadon, 2013; Duval-Couetil & Rheed-Roads, 2012). Organizations including the National Science Foundation through the Lean Launch Curriculum and I-Corps program, VentureWell through curriculum development grants and their E-Team program, and the Kern Family Foundation through the Kern Entrepreneurial Education Network (KEEN) have provided significant funding to embed and transform entrepreneurial teaching and practice into colleges of engineering (Matthew et al., 2017; Pistrui, Blessing & Mekemson, 2008; Smith et al. 2017). This activity combines with an added emphasis among engineering programs to develop an entrepreneurial mindset among their engineering students with the belief that this will lead to them being more productive and innovative whether their career path leads them into established industry (becoming “intrapreneurs”) or later as entrepreneurs.
While this trend toward developing more entrepreneurially minded engineering students is supported by global economic trends and a rapidly changing work environment, one factor has been largely overlooked in this process. Statistically, most entrepreneurial ventures fail, with disproportionately large value being created from a minority of entrepreneurial endeavors (Coats, 2019). Given this fact, until we find ways to drastically increase the success rate of entrepreneurial ventures, as we increase engineering students’ exposure to entrepreneurship, we are also increasing their exposure to failure very early in their careers. With this exposure, it is unknown whether sufficient preparation and education around project/venture failure is occurring to properly equip entrepreneurially minded engineering students to learn and grow from entrepreneurial failure.
In this work in progress study, current and former engineering students who formed entrepreneurial ventures and experienced either failure of the venture or significant failure during the venture are interviewed to better understand the influences that led to both adaptive and maladaptive responses to these failures. Participants have been selected from those that have received funding through the national VentureWell E-Team program. This program awards three levels of funding and provides mentorship, training, and networking for the teams. The study uses the framework developed by Henry, Shorter, Charkoudian, Heemstra, and Corwin (2018) in which they associate pre-failure dispositions related to fixed and growth mindset (Dweck, 2000, 2006) and mastery vs. performance disposition (Pintrich, 2000 a, b). Our work will utilize this framework to guide the research, but more importantly will provide a unique context for analysis, specifically within engineering entrepreneurship, which will add to the body of work and expand the understanding of this pre-failure/post-failure disposition framework. Initial interview data and analysis will be presented in the context of this framework with preliminary insights to be shared with those in the field.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2024570
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10287565
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This paper focuses on how former collegiate student entrepreneurs define failure and compares their definitions with how academic literature has traditionally defined entrepreneurial failure. The article examines the context by which collegiate student entrepreneurs, and more specifically student entrepreneurs who studied an engineering discipline, start their venture, and how that influences their perceptions of what entrepreneurial failure is. Entrepreneurial failure and its importance to the field of entrepreneurship is discussed almost as frequently as entrepreneurial success. In fact, learning from failure and learning to fail quickly as a means to assist in advancing toward success are often discussed as fundamental key attributes of successful entrepreneurs. Despite this, factors that influence and contribute to entrepreneurial success and how to increase entrepreneurial success through support mechanisms are far more understood than methods that would help support entrepreneurs in learning from failure, or finding ways to fail early and often in a way that helps them as opposed to discouraging or demoralizing them. Given the rapid increase and interest within colleges of engineering in introducing and exposing students to entrepreneurial experiences, and also in developing programs that help students start entrepreneurial ventures, it is timely to better understand the experiences of these student entrepreneurs, particularly the largest percentage of them who started ventures that failed. While the importance of learning from failure is often repeated in the literature, this paper highlights distinct differences between how collegiate entrepreneurs define failure, compared with more traditionally researched non-collegiate entrepreneurs, and also outlines how the various contexts by which students become involved in an entrepreneurial endeavor influences their perception of how failure is defined.more » « less
-
Entrepreneurship Support Programs (ESP) in engineering provide education, mentoring, and advising for emerging entrepreneurs and their ventures. The impact of ESPs on engineering students’ professional formation and the acquisition of different attributes—such as creativity, risk-taking, empathy, and curiosity—is largely unknown. Though the social sciences have a strong and robust history of studying many of the attributes, such as creativity and problem-solving, typically associated with entrepreneurship, there has been little connection between this foundational research and the work of ESPs. In fact, two separate systematic reviews have shown that most published work in STEM entrepreneurship education is not theoretically grounded and does not follow standards of quality research approaches in the social sciences. In an effort to bridge the gap between social scientists and engineering entrepreneurship practitioners, the authors are conducting a two-phase study. Phase 1 of the study involves conducting a Delphi study to identify the top entrepreneurial attributes of professionals and researchers who lead ESPs. Phase 2 of the study includes conducting workshops with social scientists who study the attributes and ESP leaders. The goal of the workshops is to identify assessment frameworks grounded in social science theory and literature that will guide the measurement of the attributes. This session will focus on the results of the Delphi phase. Delphi study is a common research technique used to achieve consensus among experts (Hasson, Keeney, and McKenna, 2000). Seventy-three participants who lead or have led an ESP, have conducted research in entrepreneurship education, or act as administrators for relevant entrepreneurship programs were invited to participate in the Delphi study. Of the 73 invited, 14 completed at least two rounds of the Delphi study. All participants were experts in the field of engineering entrepreneurship education. The Delphi Study comprised three rounds- brainstorming, narrowing, and ranking. Each phase of the Delphi asked participants to think about three different sets of attributes: 1) entrepreneurial attributes that they thought were important in the development of an entrepreneur, 2) attributes in becoming a successful professional, and 3) attributes in working in an inclusive workspace. In the brainstorming phase, participants were sent an online questionnaire and were asked to brainstorm as many attributes as they could think of. The results of the brainstorming questionnaire were consolidated and used to develop the narrowing questionnaire, where participants were asked to narrow all attributes to the top 10 key attributes The results from the narrowing questionnaire were then used to develop a ranking questionnaire, where participants were asked to rank the items on a scale of importance with 1 being the most important to 10 being the least important for each set of attributes. The results of the phase 3 questionnaire were analyzed to identify the attributes that were ranked the highest among a majority of the participants. This paper discusses the findings of the Delphi Study and its implications in assessing the impact of ESP on entrepreneur formation.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT There is a need to expand the fundamental skills in science and engineering to include innovation & entrepreneurship (I&E) skills as core competencies. To better prepare the future Nanotechnology workforce, the University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez Nanotechnology Center, broadened the educational content beyond traditional skills in science and engineering. The Center, offers a rich educational program for materials and nano scientists that aims to create the next generation of knowledgeable, experienced professionals, and successful entrepreneurs, who can develop value-added innovations that can spur economic growth and continue to impact the quality of life for society. Within the educational program an Entrepreneurship Education Co-Curricular Program (EEP) incorporates I&E training into the Materials Science, Nanotechnology, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) faculty and student experiences. The EEP consists of a two-year series of workshops that seek to develop an entrepreneurial mindset, including five key topics: 1) Generation of Ideas, 2) Entrepreneurial Vision, 3) Early Assessment of Ideas, 4) Identification of Opportunities, and 5) Strategic Thinking. The EEP goals, target audience, and implementation strategy, is described with an evaluation tool to assess the program’s success in developing an entrepreneurial mindset.more » « less
-
Background: The National Science Foundation (NSF) and other organizations have spent millions of dollars each year supporting well-designed educational innovations that positively impact the undergraduate engineering students who encounter them. However, many of these pedagogical innovations never experience widespread adoption. To further the ability of innovation developers to advance engineering education practice and achieve sustained adoption of their innovations, this paper explores how one community-based model, engineering education guilds, fosters propagation across institutions and individuals. Engineering education guilds seek to work at the forefront of educational innovation by creating networks of instructor change-agents who design and implement a particular innovation in their own context. The guilds of interest are the Consortium to Promote Reflection in Engineering Education (CPREE) and the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN). With these guilds as exemplars, this study’s purpose is (1) to articulate how the approaches of engineering education guilds align with existing literature on supporting sustained adoption of educational innovations and (2) to identify how these approaches can advance the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education community’s discussion of propagation practices through the use of the Designing for Sustained Adoption Assessment Instrument (DSAAI). The DSAAI is a conceptual framework based on research in sustained adoption of pedagogical innovations. It has previously been used in the form of a rubric to analyze dissemination and propagation plans of NSF educational grant recipients and was shown to predict the effectiveness of those propagation plans. Results: Through semi-structured interviews with two leaders from each guild, we observed strong alignment between the structures of CRPEE and KEEN and evidence-based sustained adoption characteristics. For example, both guilds identified their intended audience early in their formation, developed and implemented extensive plans for engaging and supporting potential adopters, and accounted for the complexity of the higher education landscape and their innovations in their propagation plans. Conclusions: Our results suggest that guilds could provide another approach to innovation, as their structures can be aligned with evidence-based methods for propagating pedagogical innovations. Additionally, while the DSAAI captures many of the characteristics of a welld-esigned propagation strategy, there are additional components that emerged as successful strategies used by the CPREE and KEEN guild leaders. These strategies, including having mutual accountability among adopters and connecting adoption of innovations to faculty reward structures in the form of recognition and funding should be considered as educational innovators work to encourage adoption of their innovations.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
