CHAPTER 2.

Setting the stage

Raffaella Borasi

2.1. What entrepreneurship is really about

To appreciate the potential contributions that the field of entrepreneurship can provide to education, it is important first of all to examine what entrepreneurship actually means, and challenge some misconceptions commonly associated with this term. More often than not, entrepreneurship is identified with the field of business and is associated with the start-up of new businesses and the generation of economic returns, though the meaning of the term remains ambiguous (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Heber & Link, 1989; Mair & Marti, 2006; Vecchio, 2003).  In contrast, scholars in several fields have recently widened the scope of entrepreneurship to include much broader applications (e.g., Bornstein, 2004; Dees, 2001; Mair & Marti, 2006). A selection of definitions of entrepreneurship found in the literature provide valuable insights into how these expanded applications are not only possible but especially relevant for education today (as identified in Figure 2.1 and discussed in more detail below).

Figure 2.1. Broader definitions of entrepreneurship

First of all, it is significant that one of the pioneers of entrepreneurship, economist Joseph Schumpeter (Schumpter, 1934), described entrepreneurship in terms of pursuing and carrying out innovations, stating that “the defining characteristic [of an entrepreneur] is simply the doing of new things or the doing of things that are already being done in a new way (innovation)” (p. 151). Schumpeter’s thinking built upon Cantillon (as cited in Heber & Link, 1989), who saw entrepreneurs as individuals who take risks to realize individual profit and who also thought mostly of innovations in the context of for-profit businesses and the generation of economic value.  Schumpeter further identifies several complementary types of innovation, which we believe are all relevant for the field of education; that is, product innovation – introducing a new product or service that replaces or significantly improves on an existing one; process innovation – making a significant improvement on how a product or service is delivered, or other important processes; positioning innovation – in which an existing product or service is used to solve a new problem or need; and paradigm innovation – the introduction of a new product, service, or process that revolutionizes a field (Schumpeter, 1934; Tidd et al., 1997).Drucker (1993) later extended Schumpeter’s idea to further connect innovation to the idea of entrepreneurship. While these authors might have thought mostly of innovations in the context of for-profit businesses and the generation of economic value, it is interesting to note the immediate connection with educators who are agents of change, as initiating innovations is what most characterizes their  activity.

More recently, Bygrave (2004) has defined entrepreneurship as “perceiving an opportunity and creating an organization to pursue it.”  Besides bringing to our attention the key role played by recognizing and pursuing opportunities in entrepreneurship, this definition begins to suggest the possible application of entrepreneurship beyond business, as an organization could also be a not-for-profit enterprise or even a new “center” or branch within an existing institution.

Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) describe entrepreneurship as, “a process by which individuals – either on their own or inside organizations, pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control” (p.23).  This definition, while re-emphasizing the key role played by opportunities, also makes explicit that entrepreneurship is a process, and furthermore associates it with the pursuit of all types of opportunities, and not just those leading to starting a new business.  It also makes clear that to be an entrepreneur one does not need to start a new organization, thus opening the possibility for an individual to begin new and innovative ventures and initiatives within his/her organization, a role that has occasionally been called intrapreneur (Pinchot, 1985). This concept of intrapreneur is especially important for educators, as educators are often employees within pre-existing organizations.  This definition also brings to our attention another element that characterizes the behavior of entrepreneurs in all fields (and to which we will return at various points within the book) – that is, the fundamental attitude that the limitation of existing resources should not unduly constrain the decision to embark in a worthwhile venture, but rather one should simply look for different funding sources to start such ventures.

Over the past two decades, the emerging field of social entrepreneurship, defined as the creation of organizations and initiatives that work to address social problems (e.g., Alvord, Brown & Letts, 2004; Bornstein, 2004; Dees, 2001; Leadbeater, 1997; Mair & Marti, 2006; Theobold, 1987), has also shown how the application of entrepreneurial concepts and processes is possible for those who wish to create positive social change. Bornstein (2004), in particular, provides a very appealing description of social entrepreneurs as “transformative forces: people with new ideas to address major problems who are restless in the pursuit of their visions, people who simply will not take ‘no’ for an answer, who will not give up until they have spread their ideas as far as they possibly can” (Bornstein, 2004, p.1).  Mars and Metcalfe’s definition – “the process of creating and implementing innovation-based solutions and responses to economic and societal problems and gaps” (Mars & Metcalfe, 2009, p.2) – encompasses both social and business entrepreneurs, while once again emphasizing the connection between entrepreneurship and innovation.

Another definition that explicitly expands entrepreneurship beyond the business realm is provided by Green (2005), who defines entrepreneurship as the process of “transforming an idea into an enterprise that generates value,” where the value could be social or cultural or economic.  This definition makes even more explicit that entrepreneurial concepts and processes can be applied to the not-for-profit and service-centered arenas, while recognizing that the end goal may be different in each context, as business entrepreneurs tend to focus on generating economic value, while social entrepreneurs aim first and foremost at generating social and/or intellectual value. It is also important to be aware that this is not a sharp distinction, as both groups of entrepreneurs have increasingly started to consider combinations of economic and social/intellectual value as their goal (Alvord, Brown & Letts, 2004).

Our belief that the study of entrepreneurship can be valuable for educators is based on the promise of these expanded conceptions of entrepreneurship to provide new insights about what it takes to be more effective innovators. The previously identified definitions suggest interesting parallels between the practices of traditional entrepreneurs and those of successful agents of change in education.  Even more specifically, if we look at educational leaders who have transformed their institutions (whether these leaders are school principals, district superintendents, or university deans) they have been relentless in their pursuit of opportunities to initiate change that would add value to their organization and clients – just like successful entrepreneurs in other fields.  And the most valuable employees in a successful educational institution (whether faculty or staff) are often those who demonstrate creativity, initiative, and most importantly a penchant for developing new value-adding initiatives – traits that have also been identified as characteristic of entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs across fields.

2.2. Complementary ways of applying entrepreneurship to education

Before describing the nature and scope of our own study in more detail, in this section we briefly review a few alternative approaches to applying entrepreneurship to the field of education. As the goal of this review is to better situate and differentiate our work, what follows is a conceptual, rather than comprehensive, review of the literature at the intersection of entrepreneurship and education (see Rios-Aguilar, Khan & Borasi, 2006, for a more in-depth review).

The broader conceptions of entrepreneurship identified in the previous section are especially interesting in light of recent developments in the field of education itself.  First, in addition to the traditional professions of teacher/faculty and school/academic leader, we are witnessing the emergence of many new professionals within education – such as program evaluators, professional development providers, as well as a variety of education consultants, each of who are more likely to work on their own and start for-profit businesses or not-for-profit organizations rather than seek employment in large educational institutions.  The current dire state of public education and the many missed opportunities to capitalize on education to improve human conditions have also spurred an increased interest in the privatization of education, as charter schools and independent organizations have emerged to address needs that have not been adequately served by public education.  At the same time, this dissatisfaction has led many educators to see themselves as “agents of change” within the school or institution they work in, with the responsibility to promote and carry out innovations that can significantly improve education, and thus make a difference in people’s lives.

So, when looking at potential applications of entrepreneurship to education, it will make a difference if people view entrepreneurship essentially just as “starting new businesses”, or instead assume a broader interpretation as “transforming ideas into enterprises that generate value in any field”.  Similarly, it will make a difference if education is viewed only as pertaining to teaching and administration within traditional educational institutions, or rather is more broadly conceived as “support development and learning across the life course and in a variety of contexts”.  The combinations of these different views results in four complementary interpretations of what entrepreneurship in education may mean, as summarized in Figure 2.2 and discussed in more detail in the rest of this section.

Figure 2.2. Complementary views about applications of entrepreneurship to education

• A. Starting new businesses to take the place of schools and universities. Not surprisingly, the first applications of entrepreneurship in education have focused on starting new businesses such as K-12 private or charter schools, or for-profit universities. There is a growing literature on each of these phenomena (whether or not drawing explicitly on entrepreneurship), as exemplified by the work of Buckley and Schneider (2009) on charter schools, Tierney and Hentschke (2007) on for-profit colleges, and Shane (2004) on university spin-offs.
• B. Starting new education-related businesses to provide services that can support learning and development across the life course and in a variety of contexts. If we expand our notion of education to encompass more than teaching and leadership at schools and universities, even a narrow view of entrepreneurship as “starting new businesses” can lead to a wider variety of applications of entrepreneurship in education, as new companies can be created to address a great variety of “gaps” in the services provided within as well as outside traditional education institutions. For example, we can envision new businesses providing needed after-school programs for students, program evaluation services, school leadership training, training programs for businesses or other organizations, just to mention a few.  Indeed Hess (2008b) points out the value of looking for innovative solutions outside of schools and universities, as any traditional institution is likely to be resistant to change and thus present too many barriers to radical innovation. In contrast “more typically, radical and disruptive improvement is the result of new entrants devising a product or formula that works for them and managing to devise an organization and culture that provides for fidelity to the innovation at increasing scale” (Hess, 2008b, p.5).  This position is also consistent with Christensen’s studies of disruptive innovation in industry (Christensen & Raynor, 1997, 2003, 2013) as well as education (Christensen, Horn & Johnson, 2008; Christensen & Eyring, 2011).  These studies showed that, while leading companies are very good at developing sustaining innovations (that is, innovations that improve on existing products and processes), very few have been successful when it comes to disruptive innovations (that is, innovations that propose radically new ways to do things).
• C. Assuming an entrepreneurial approach to promote change within schools and universities. When the scope of entrepreneurship is broadened to include innovations of all kinds and not just the starting of new businesses, it becomes clear that educational leaders can greatly benefit from learning more about entrepreneurial concepts and skills so as to become more effective at promoting innovations that can move their school/university forward. The seminal book The Entrepreneurial Educator, by Brown and Cornwall (2000), began to uncover this potential by articulating specific benefits of being “entrepreneurial” for K-12 schools and their leaders, and by pointing out attitudes and behaviors identified as “entrepreneurial” in business or other fields that educators should consider using, as well as fundamental differences between the fields of education and business that should be taken into consideration when applying the notion of entrepreneurship in education.   Similarly, Clark’s book on Creating Entrepreneurial Universities (Clark, 1998) examined the relevance of assuming an entrepreneurial approach in higher education institutions, as these organizations are struggling to meet increasingly complex demands with diminishing resources.  At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that other authors (e.g., Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004) have voiced serious concerns about the potential risks of embracing entrepreneurship in an educational setting, and especially universities, as they argue that the values informing entrepreneurship may conflict with other fundamental values of traditional educational institutions (see Wall, Borasi & Emery, 2011, for a more in-depth review of this debate within higher education).
• D. Assuming an entrepreneurial approach to promote change in education (broadly defined). The relevance of entrepreneurial concepts and practices for improving schools and universities, as discussed above, can also be extended to educational services and professions that take place outside as well as within these traditional educational institutions. The potential of this intersection of entrepreneurship and education (when both are broadly defined) has been explored by several scholars who contributed to Hess’ edited books on educational entrepreneurship (Hess, 2006a, 2008a).  While these studies contributed valuable principles and insights, they still left open the question of how individual educators, operating in various contexts and positions within the field of education, could make use of entrepreneurial concepts and practices to become more successful at promoting value-adding innovations, and thus become more effective change agents, a key focus of our study.

 To conclude this section, we would also like to mention that there is a rich literature in educational leadership and change that has close connections and relevance for entrepreneurship in education – especially in the spirit of box C in Figure 2.2, although it may not make explicit references to entrepreneurship as a concept or a field.  This includes works in transformational leadership (e.g., Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005), school change (e.g., Fuller, 2007), and educational innovation more generally (e.g., Senge et al., 1999; Christensen, Horn & Johnson, 2008).

2.3. Rationale for our case studies of entrepreneurial educators

Given our pragmatic interest in empowering individual educators to become better change agents by using entrepreneurial concepts and practices, as we started our study we were struck by the insights provided by the in-depth case studies of social entrepreneurs reported in Bornstein (2004).  Unfortunately, only two of Bornstein’s subjects worked within the field of education, and we could not find any other in-depth case studies of “entrepreneurial educators” in the literature at the time.  Therefore, we decided to conduct our own case studies of educators who had a successful history of initiating and carrying out innovations that added value to their clients and/or institutions.

Mindful of the limitations of early research on entrepreneurship that focused on personality traits that characterize entrepreneurs and as reported in the entrepreneurship literature (e.g., Vecchio, 2003; Baron & Shane, 2004), our study focused on what our subjects did when engaging in specific innovations, rather than what “kind of person” they were.  Even more specifically, our study aimed at identifying a set of practices that contributed to our subjects’ success as education change agents and thus could be used by other educators when engaging in their own innovations to increase their chances of success.

As case studies and case discussions are easily confused, it may be worth clarifying here that the goal of our research study has been to use a case study methodology to provide rigorous accounts of individuals’ experiences and practices using data collection and analysis methods based on the well-established qualitative research tradition known as “case study methodology” (e.g., Yin, 2003).  This is quite different from writing “cases” for discussion in instructional settings;, which are instead vignettes based on real problematic situations that are offered as a pedagogical tool to engage a group of learners in a discussion of possible solutions or decisions.

In the final sections of this chapter, we articulate key concepts and findings from the field of entrepreneurship that informed our case studies of entrepreneurial educators.

2.4. Key characteristics of entrepreneurs

Early studies of entrepreneurship focused on identifying key characteristics of entrepreneurs.  Key findings related to characteristics of business versus social entrepreneurs are reported in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Characteristics of individual entrepreneurs from the literature

While providing some interesting insights about entrepreneurs, these studies have been critiqued as limited, on the basis that what really matters most is what an entrepreneur does, not what s/he is.

2.5. Entrepreneurial practices

Given our ultimate goal of empowering educators to be more effective agents of change, our case studies of entrepreneurial educators focused mostly on examining what they did as they engaged in specific innovations and how they were approaching these situations, so as to identify specific practices they used as they approached specific aspects of their work.  We chose to focus on the following five areas, which emerged as most significant: vision, opportunities, risk, resources, and growth.

Below we have articulated the more specific questions that we pursued in all the case studies for each of these areas, and we have identified selected findings from the literature on entrepreneurship that motivated these questions:

1. Vision – Having a clear vision and being able to share it with others has been identified in the literature as one of the key characteristics of entrepreneurs, in general, and social entrepreneurs in particular. For example, dream/vision is the first item in Bygrave’s list, and while Bornstein (2004) did not include vision in his list of characteristics of social entrepreneurs, he describes social entrepreneurs as “people with new ideas to address major problems who are relentless in the pursuit of their visions” (p.1), and also states they are individuals who are “possessed, really possessed by an idea” (p.117). Bornstein also points out that specific ideas as well as an overarching vision are not something that just “happens,” but rather they are something that get progressively defined and refined in a dynamic process, as social entrepreneurs see new opportunities to address critical needs and consider implementation questions such as, “How to better use local resources to solve a problem? […] How to finance an organization? How to train others to do the work? How to motivate clients and staff?” (p.119).   Therefore, the case studies featured in this e-book are intended to shed light on the following questions:  Do entrepreneurial educators, too, have a “vision” that informs most of what they do?  If so, what is that vision?  How does that vision affect their decisions and actions, especially when promoting specific innovations? What specific strategies do they use to communicate their vision, to get key stakeholders to “buy-in”?
2. Opportunities – Identifying and pursuing opportunities is at the very core of at least two of the definitions of entrepreneurship we reported earlier, the ones by Bygrave and Stevenson reported in Figure 2.1. Indeed, the literature on entrepreneurship suggests that one of the things that most characterizes entrepreneurs is their approach to opportunities. This in turn raises the following questions:   What roles do opportunities play in an entrepreneurial educator’s work? How do entrepreneurial educators recognize and/or proactively seek opportunities? How do they evaluate whether an opportunity is worth pursuing?  How do they act upon an opportunity they have deemed worthwhile?
3. Risk – Entrepreneurs are often considered as risk-takers, although some research studies suggest that this is not how most entrepreneurs would describe themselves (e.g., Palich & Bagby, 1995; Busenitz, 1999). Rather, some of these authors have suggested that entrepreneurs tend to evaluate the risk involved in pursuing a new venture, as well as other risks, differently from most other people. Self-efficacy (i.e., the belief that one can succeed in what one has decided to undertake) can indeed play an important role in the evaluation of the chances of success vs. failure, as well as the potential consequences of both scenarios. At the same time, Brown & Cornwall (2000) suggest that entrepreneurs usually give greater weight to the risk of “missing the boat” (i.e., missing the potential benefits that could have been gained by pursuing an opportunity) versus the risk of “sinking the boat” (i.e., facing the negative consequences of failing in the initiative one has chosen to undertake so as to pursue an opportunity). This is in sharp contrast to what happens in traditional institutions, where “sinking the boat” has real consequences, while rarely people are held accountable for “missing the boat”.  These considerations suggest the value of asking the following questions: How much risk can entrepreneurial educators tolerate? How do they evaluate the “sinking the boat” and “missing the boat” risks involved in specific initiatives and decisions? What strategies and tools do they use to reduce and manage risk?
4. Resources – Paying attention to resources is critical to what business entrepreneurs do, as they need to secure the necessary funding, personnel, equipment, etc., for any initiative they want to launch, and furthermore their overall success is often measured in monetary terms (Bygrave, 2004). While the success measurement, in monetary terms, does not apply in the case of social entrepreneurs, the extent to which one’s vision can be put into practice depends to a great extent on the resources one is able to secure – as captured by the common saying “no money no mission”.  Entrepreneurs have also been characterized as individuals who “pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990, p.23). Furthermore, the need for “bootstrapping” (that is, stretching the available resources as far as possible so as to accomplish what is needed) is a reality for both start-up businesses and non-profit organizations, to the point that one of the definitions we found in the literature (“Specializing in taking judgmental decisions about the coordination of scarce resources” [Casson, 1982]) points to dealing with scarce resources as a characterizing feature of entrepreneurship.  Since education is a service industry, it is also important to keep in mind that human resources are probably the most critical resource an entrepreneurial educator needs to secure to ensure the success of specific innovations.  It seems therefore worthwhile to explore: How do entrepreneurial educators approach resource issues in their work? What strategies do they employ to ensure funding for the start-up and on-going costs of specific initiatives?  How do they go about selecting, compensating, and working with the personnel required to work on specific innovations? What “bootstrapping” strategies do they employ to make the most of their scarce resources?  How do they balance fiscal feasibility considerations with the pursuit of their missions?
5. Growth – Rapidly growing one’s business is often a major drive as well as a measure of success for business entrepreneurs. However, Bornstein (2004) also reported that the social entrepreneurs he studied were not satisfied when their ideas succeeded at a small scale, but rather seemed driven by the desire to “expand their influence” as much as possible. This often meant growing the size of their organization to serve more people or finding ways to have others replicate their “model”.  The literature on entrepreneurship also points out how the size of an organization greatly affects leadership structures and roles; therefore, as entrepreneurs are successful in growing their businesses, they also need to change accordingly their role and responsibilities as the leader of the organization (e.g., Kelley & Marram, 2004).  These considerations led us to question: To what extent do entrepreneurial educators aspire to “grow” their initiatives and/or organization, and what different forms may this take? In what other ways may they try to “expand their sphere of influence”? What strategies do they use to deal with the inevitable changes and challenges that growth, broadly defined, brings with it?

2.6. Stages of the entrepreneurial process

A complementary approach to understanding what makes entrepreneurs successful is to examine what they do at specific stages of the process of implementing a specific innovation. This has been referred to in the literature as the “entrepreneurial process”.  

While different authors have identified somewhat different stages in the entrepreneurial process, the similarities are quite striking. For example, Baron & Shane (2005) have identified the following key components within the entrepreneurial process (using business as their main context): (a) recognition of an opportunity; (b) deciding to proceed and assembling essential resources; (c) launching the new venture, (d) building success, and (e) harvesting rewards. Furthermore, they argue that as entrepreneurs become more proficient at implementing each of these components, they can decrease the risk of failure that is so high when starting a new enterprise.   Other researchers have also provided insights into the specific stages of the entrepreneurial process as it takes place mainly in a business context, including how entrepreneurs evaluate opportunities (Timmons, 2004; Sing, 2000), how they assemble the required resources (financial and human) to take advantage of opportunities (Baron & Shane, 2005), and how they manage growth and success (Baron & Shane, 2005).

Few theorists have attempted to understand the process of social entrepreneurship, though many recognize that this process shares similarities with traditional entrepreneurship models (i.e. Thompson et al., 2000), albeit with different end goals in sight.  Bornstein (2004) for example, based on his case studies of several social entrepreneurs, proposed that most social entrepreneurs engage in the following actions: see a problem and envision a new solution; take initiative to act on that vision; gather resources; build organizations to protect and market their vision; and, keep improving, strengthening, and broadening their vision “until what was once a marginal idea has become a new norm” (Bornstein, 2004, p. 3).

For our study, we chose to essentially adopt the stages of the entrepreneurial process suggested by Baron & Shane’s (2005) model, with just a few modifications.  So, when reporting the in-depth stories of specific innovations undertaken by our case study subjects, we have tried to reconstruct key events and decisions related to the following four key components:

• a) Coming up with the idea and evaluating/refining it: The first critical step to achieve innovations in education is obviously coming up with the initial idea for a new initiative that can add value to one’s organization and/or clients. Yet most educators have more ideas than they can possibly implement, so deciding which of the ideas they have generated (or which of the opportunities they have identified) is worth pursuing is most critical to an innovator’s success, Equally important is to understand how entrepreneurial educators use this evaluation process to actually refine their initial idea into something that has greater potential for success. Entire courses and sections of business entrepreneurship textbooks (e.g., Timmons, 2007) are devoted to providing novice entrepreneurs with tools to guide such evaluation and decision-making process. At the same time, these tools are typically less relevant and less useful for educators, as they tend to focus on ways to evaluate the potential of a venture to realize a profit and the extent of that profit.  Therefore, it seems important to look at how entrepreneurial educators approached this first stage of the process to address the following questions: How do entrepreneurial educators come up with their initial ideas for worthwhile innovations?  How do they evaluate and refine those ideas?  What specific elements do they look at, and what criteria do they use?
• b) Planning and gathering the necessary resources: The business literature suggests that creating sound business plans can greatly minimize a new company’s chances of failure.  Indeed, we all intuitively know that careful planning is a critical element for the success of any innovation.  This planning, in turn, is closely connected with the process of securing the funding, personnel, facilities, approvals, and any other kinds of resources needed to successfully implement proposed initiatives.  This raises the following questions:  How do entrepreneurial educators go about planning their initiatives? When will they engage in formal written plans and why? How do they go about securing each of the types of resources identified earlier?
• c) Implementing and monitoring the initiative: Once a new venture/innovation has been decided and planned, a lot still needs to be done to ensure its success. The plan needs to be implemented, making modifications as needed. This implementation needs to be monitored and its outcomes evaluated – both to decide which adjustments may be needed in the original plan, and to decide whether it is worth continuing or not.  This stage of the process raises the following questions: How do entrepreneurial educators manage these various aspects of the implementation stage? How do they set up appropriate evaluation systems? What criteria do they use to make key decisions?
• d) Ensuring long-term sustainability and/or bigger impact (when appropriate): While some initiatives may be confined to a one-time event, most education innovations cannot be considered truly successful if they cannot be sustained over time and possibly expanded to achieve the widest possible impact. So it will be worth exploring: How do entrepreneurial educators ensure that this happens – especially after they can no longer be directly involved in the initiative they started?  How do they decide whether a successful initiative should be expanded or replicated – or even ended?

While all these phases (except possibly the last one) take place in some form whenever undertaking an educational innovation, it is also important to note that these phases may not always occur linearly.  The strategies employed at each stage to ensure success may also be somewhat different depending not only on the individual educator, but also on the nature of the education innovation itself as well as the context in which the innovation takes place.

2.7. Organizational factors affecting entrepreneurial activity

Our research study also examined the characteristics of each subject’s organization that helped or hindered his/her entrepreneurial activity, focusing in particular on the presence or absence of characteristics identified in the literature as common to most “entrepreneurial organizations”, as summarized in Figure 2.4 below.

The concepts and questions articulated in this chapter are used as organizers in the systematic analysis of the experiences of the eight entrepreneurial educators in the chapters that follow.  At the same time, in each case study chapter we also report on some unique elements outside of this framework, so as to highlight additional insights that each case study contributed to our understanding of what it means and what it takes to be entrepreneurial in education.