Bridging the Divides between Academe, Policy & Practice

Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279

Title: Bridging the Divides between Academics, Practice, and Policy in Entrepreneurship

Primary Sponsor: All-Academy Theme (AAT)

Potential Co-sponsors: Practice Theme Committee (PTC); Entrepreneurship (ENT); Teaching

Theme Committee (TTC); Technology and Innovation Management (TIM). Also: Academy of

Management Strategic Doing Initiative

Bridging the Divides between Academics, Practice, and Policy in Entrepreneurship

Organizers [full list below]:

Dr. Suresh Kumar, CEO, Green Earth LLC; University of Phoenix, NJ

Dr. Norris F. Krueger, Jr., Entrepreneurship Northwest/College of Western Idaho.

Dr. Fedor Ovchinnikov, Entrepreneurship Division Practitioner Initiative

Abstract:

Academic and practitioner groups in the field of entrepreneurship hold large annual conferences

but rarely interact effectively. Barring a few exceptions, there is very little by way of strategic

partnerships between academic and practitioner organizations that tie in practice, research,

education, advocacy and policy in meaningful ways. While there may not be a one size fits all

solution, it is critical for academic and practitioner organizations and their individual members to

explore avenues for collaboration to find out what works and what does not. This participatory

workshop conducted by practitioner-researchers discusses practical and innovative strategies that

have worked. This workshop is not an academic exercise - rather, it will feature a series of

vignettes by expert entrepreneurs, researchers, consultants, and leaders of not-for-profit

organizations that showcases academic-practice bridging strategies that have worked in the field

of entrepreneurship education. This workshop will highlight – and develop - innovative ideas

that can help bridge the divide and identify common ground between education and practice. For

example, a recurring theme will be how we can use educational tools to help practitioners and

academics to better learn from each other. The objective of this workshop is to share knowledge

and help participants build upon it and thereby help make education and research more relevant

to practice. We encourage participants not just to showcase 'best practices' but also to reflect

upon the challenges faced, how innovative solutions were crafted, why the strategy has been so

effective, and how the experiences were leveraged to bridge learning and practice.

1


Bridging the Divides between Academics, Practice, and Policy in Entrepreneurship

[or... “Questioning Capitalism AND the Ivory Tower?”]

Overview of Workshop

At the 2012 Academy of Management conference, we had ~100 attendees from all over

the Academy join us for a rousing discussion of what was working. Rather than focus on the

negatives, our presenters and audience members kept the focus squarely on the opportunities.

The leaders of this workshop, one a well known researcher (and recovering tech

entrepreneur) and the other a serial entrepreneur now entering the groves of Academe, have over

the years experienced multiple disconnects between academics and practice in the field of

entrepreneurship. Many major academic organizations such as Academy of Management,

International Council of Small Business, and the United States Association of Small Business

and Entrepreneurship; as well as organizations that represent practitioners such as the United

States Chamber of Commerce, Inc. Magazine, and The Indus Entrepreneur (TIE) conduct large

annual conferences for their members. Our experience attending many of the events has been

that, barring a few exceptions, there is very little by way of strategic dialogue and sustainable

partnerships between academic and practitioner organizations that tie in practice, research,

education, advocacy and policy in meaningful ways.

We have found that organizations charged with fostering the practice and education of

entrepreneurship, at least for the most part, operate in silos that separate entrepreneurs from

educators and researchers. For example, academic conferences that are focused on

entrepreneurship organized by USASBE and ICSB are attended just by a handful of practicing

entrepreneurs, usually those who have a recent success story and have been invited to speak. We

attribute the following as among the reasons for this disconnect (a) there is hardly any outreach

by the organizers of academic conferences to practitioners, (b) practicing entrepreneurs have

busy schedules and select events where they can get proven and practical ideas that could

address their immediate concerns and can be applied to their businesses, not abstract research

finding, and (c) entrepreneurs and the organization that represent them often lack the training to

find and see the relevance in academic research that could contribute to better decision-making

(Davidsson, 2011).

2


Having participated in over 25 academic conferences between us, we can testify that

there are plenty of excellent mentoring and learning opportunities for researchers at academic

conferences such as doctoral consortiums and workshops. However, the value proposition for

practitioners at academic conferences is not the same. For the majority of the papers presented at

academic conferences the practical applicability is suspect. We echo the arguments made by

William Bygrave (2007), as the primary reasons for this problem: (a) use of improper datasets,

widespread use of secondary data, research models based on weak theory, research questions that

are of little relevance to the world of practice, and use of esoteric quantitative techniques that is

for the most part far removed from the reality of what actually happens inside the complex and

chaotic world of start-up’s. According to Dale Meyer (2011), the academic field of

entrepreneurship is “stalled” due the use of econometric methodologies and secondary databases

that “distance researchers from actual people and behaviors that catalyze entrepreneurs and

entrepreneurship” (p. 7).

On the practitioner organization side, over the years, between us we have attended over

20 events and annual conferences such as the Americas Small Business Summit organized by the

US Chamber of Commerce, Tie-con of TIE, and the annual Inc. 500/5000 Conference by Inc.

magazine. At each of these events we were hard pressed to find experts from research and

academia. We argue that among of the key reasons for this missed opportunity are the following:

(a) there is hardly any outreach by practitioner organizations to the entrepreneurship educators

and researchers, (b) majority of the organizations representing practitioners stick with a narrow

agenda that is designed get the immediate attention of their membership at the cost of addressing

long term systemic issues that are supported and validated by painstaking research, (c)

educational institutions do not give tenure credit to researcher who conduct workshops, do

research, or speak at non-academic conferences, (d) universities and business schools do not

reimburse researchers the fee and expenses for non-academic conferences (Kumar, 2011). The

irony is that practitioner conferences are attended by large numbers of entrepreneurs and has the

potential to be rich sources of collection of raw data and can serve as excellent testing labs for

theory.

Our principal concern is that the disconnects discussed above could stall the progress of

both academics and practice, especially in an applied field such as entrepreneurship that many

experts believe is still in its infancy (Bygrave, 2007). However, this applies far beyond

3


entrepreneurship as it speaks to our (in)ability to share knowledge productively. For example, we

know that much of the focus will be on learning, whether sharing scholarly knowledge that has

actual-but-unrecognized practical value or deploying technology such as the MOOC.

The principal objective of the proposed workshop is to share practical strategies that have

been used by both academicians and practitioners and the organizations that represent them to

effectively bridge the gaps discussed above. While we realize that may not be a one size fits all

solution, we believe that it is critical for academic and practitioner organizations and their

individual members to explore avenues for collaboration to share best practices on what had

worked. This participatory workshop conducted by practitioner-researchers will discusses

practical strategies that can help make education and research relevant to practice.

List of Confirmed and Invited Speakers

Speakers/Presenters

1. Dr. Norris Krueger, External Fellow, Max Planck Institute of Economics/

Entrepreneurship Northwest, ID. Consultant, College of Western Idaho (Organizer)

2. Dr. Suresh Kumar, Founder and CEO, NexAge Technologies USA and Green Earth LLC,

4 time INC 500 entrepreneur, and Adjunct Faculty, University of Phoenix, NJ

(Organizer)

3. Dr. Fedor Ovichinnsky, entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship Division Practitioner Initiative.

Speakers/Presenters/Discussants/Team Mentors

4. Dr. Donna Kelley, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Babson College, MA; expert on the

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (academic-policy bridge)

5. Dr. Andrew Maxwell, Director of Canadian Innovation Centre, Temple University,

founder of VentureStart (premier online technology entrepreneurship training to

practitioners)

6. Ms. Lesley Hayes, Entrepreneurs Organization (EO) lead global entrepreneurship trainer,

PhD student in entrepreneurship; EO is actively seeking to bridge to academe.

7. Dr. David Croson, immediate past program officer, National Science Foundation SCI-SIP

initiative, including practitioner-friendly research; professor at SMU; educational

entrepreneur

4


8. Dr. William Guth, NYU, Fellow of Strategic Management Society and leading consultant

on deep strategic change

9. Dr. Usha Haley, Asia-Pacific Centre, Massey University, New Zealand

10. Dr. Kuo Frank Yu, City University of Hong Kong

11. Dr. Kathryn Goldman Schuyler, Alliant University

12. Prof. Thiago de Carvalho, entrepreneur and entrepreneurship PhD student, editor of

Entrepreneurship Division Newsletter, Brazil

13. Dr. Thomas Mierzwa, Professor, Graduate School of Management and Technology,

University of Maryland, Adelphi, MD, presenter at 2012 PDW

14. Dr. Robert D’Intino, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Rowan University, NJ, veteran of the

2012 PDW, expert on education (e.g., MOOCs)

15. Mr. William Dennis, NFIB Research Foundation, expert on policy-academe-practitioner

linkages, global speaker on this topic

Invited Discussion Provocateurs [may participate via video]

16. Mr. Tom Park, CTO of the United States (joint practitioner-academe-government

projects)

17. Ms. Leah Nichols, AAAS/NSF project on Startup Weekend-style public policy

development using entrepreneurs and academics

18. Mr. Franck Nouyrigat, co-founder of Startup Weekend, director of Startup Weekend

Research.

19. Thom Ruhe, Vice-President, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

20. Vivek Wadhwa, Duke/Berkeley/Kauffman Foundation, practitioner research on key

policy issues

We also acknowledge the invaluable advice & assistance of Per Davidsson (QUT), past chair of

ENT and a true pioneer at gap-bridging and Dr. Tyrone Pitsis (University of Newcastle,

Academy of Management Strategic Doing Initiative) who nudged us “gently” toward AAT

submission.

5


Sponsor Rationales

Why AAT?

We have a unique opportunity to question both ‘capitalism’ and the Ivory Tower.

Entrepreneurship itself is a different way to look at organizing economic activity as it focuses on

creating and delivering value to key stakeholders. Certainly entrepreneurs play an increasing role

is solving society’s problems and certainly interest in entrepreneurship has exploded in

universities. However… there remain huge disconnects that need to be addressed. But we can

bridge these divides in ways that benefit far more than just “us”.

We bring together here a remarkable group of the very best at bridging these divides. (They also

represent membership in almost every Division and represent public, private and nonprofit

worlds.) We had a big turnout last year for our ‘beta test’ without marketing. Judging by reaction

to this draft, we anticipate even more buzz.

Equally important, we developed an action-oriented format where audience members will play

meaningful roles and have great takeaways (see proposal) plus personal action items that will

benefit their universities, their communities and the Academy of Management as a whole.

Why PTC?

Sponsored a successful version of this workshop in 2012 (~100 attendees with no marketing)

where presenters shared several examples where the divide between Academe and practice were

bridged successfully. More important, the vigorous audience participation yielded considerable

insight plus a couple of new projects (and a couple of new friendships!)

Why ENT?

Co-championed last year’s PDW and had the highest representation among attendees. As noted,

a successful version of this workshop in 2012 (~100 attendees with no marketing) offered

presenters who shared several examples where the divide between Academe and practice were

bridged successfully. More important, the vigorous audience participation yielded considerable

6


insight plus a couple of new projects (and a couple of new friendships!) One co-chair leads the

Division’s project to increase engagement with practitioner, a discussant chairs the Division’s

NonTraditional Academics committee, and we include multiple former Division officers.

Why Strategic Doing Initiative?

The creation of this new AoM initative further validates that we are on the right track but it also

tells us that we have much more to do and need to reach out even more broadly. We have had

considerable invaluable advice on this project from the Strategic Doing team, including Tyrone

Pitsis as a co-chair.

Why TIM?

Last year’s successful PDW on this topic included significant (and visible) participation by TIM

members. Also, technology played a critical role in several of the 2012 examplars and will be

even more prominent in 2013.

Why TTC?

A successful version of this workshop in 2012 (~100 attendees with no marketing) where

presenters shared several examples where the divide between Academe and practice were

bridged successfully. Two of them were teaching-related and educational projects are even more

prominent this year (developing MOOCs).

7


Format of Workshop:

This workshop is not intended as an academic exercise - rather, it will move beyond the

usual ‘talking heads’ presentation-and-discussion format toward initiating strategic actions that

address different facets of the divide. We will not just discuss 'best practices' but also to reflect

upon the challenges faced, the processes used to arrive at solutions, why the strategy has been so

effective, and how the experiences were leveraged to enhance learning and practice.

More important, we learned from last year that we do not want to engage the talents of

the audience, we want to *immerse* them in this bridging process.

To that end, we propose the following:

1) Introductions and overview [short]

2) Some initial examples of highly successful bridgings to prime the pump

3) We then move into hackathon mode (think Startup Weekend model):

a. 10-15 elevator pitches* from the panel & audience alike of 60-90 seconds

b. Form teams around the ‘best’ ideas

c. PDW organizers and discussants serve as mentors, as needed for each team.

4) Scrum-style, teams spend 30-60 minutes developing a strategic or tactical proposal for

bridging one particular gap, complete with immediate action items and commitment for

action by each team member.

5) The teams then report back to the PDW with their proposal where we look for ways for

the various projects to collaborate (and, if possible, where the various sponsors and

friends of the PDW such as the Divisions can assist.)

6) Post-PDW, the co-organizers will create a comprehensive report of all the proposals and

action items. They will also assist in following up with the promised action items.

Sections 1 & 2: No more than 30 minutes [the schedule depends on total time]

Section 3: 20-30 minutes

Section 4: 30-75 minutes

Section 5: 15-20 minutes.

[we will likely need 2 hours but if we get sizeable attendance, 3 hours would be

invaluable; as you can see, this is scalable from ~90 minutes to 180 minutes]

We could easily generate 10+ excellent proposal ideas from the participants, however, we really

want to offer opportunities to the audience as well. To that end, we will solicit ideas in advance

8


and, if necessary, identify the best non-redundant projects. (We will encourage but not require

pre-registration.) Given proof of concept from 2012, we feel comfortable to market this PDW

vigorously.

Audience Takeaways

Pre-registrants (and others, as feasible) will get to see the broad array of opportunities arising

from the bridging of the gaps between Academe, policy and practice… from bridging academics,

policy experts and entrepreneurs.

This will be a very human process – we are bringing together a diverse range of talented,

passionate individuals who are working at this interface, both on the PDW and in its audience.

Attendees will get to know some amazing people who are eager to pursue tangible, productive

projects. (Yes, even research!)

This is intended to be part of a much broader effort in Academe to move this forward (e.g.,

Divisional efforts like ENT’s Practitioner effort and Academy-wide efforts like the Strategic

Doing Initiative). Attendees will be able to join the ‘crusade’ – a community of practice that

extends well beyond a few PDWs.

Audience members will take away a deeper insight in how and why to use these tools and we

anticipate that the experiential learning will provide specific insights for their own critical issues.

Audience members will also see the remarkable array of research issues that can be uniquely

addressed at the intersection of business modeling and social/sustainable entrepreneurship.

We also hope to build a community of practice around all this; this must not be a one-off event

(no matter how much fun we will be having).

Finally, each breakout group is drafting an actionable proposal for moving forward with specific

action items that each participant will publicly commit to.

9


Conclusion:

Despite the rapid growth experienced by the academic field of entrepreneurship and the

practice of entrepreneurship as two distinct endeavors, the challenges faced at their intersection

are deep and multifaceted. Given that the end goals of organizations, regardless of academic or

practitioner focused, are more or less similar, organizational leaders have the responsibility to

ensure greater collaboration. While we realize there may not be a one size fits all solution, it is

critical for academic and practitioner organizations and their individual members to explore

avenues for collaboration to find out what works and what does not. This professional

development workshop is an attempt to share knowledge and find common grounds between

academic and practice.

10

Bridging the Divides between Academe, Policy & Practice

Business

Transcript of Bridging the Divides between Academe, Policy & Practice