Located in the Boston metropolitan area, Plymouth State University started as a teachers college, became a training ground for agriculture, teaching, business, and industry. PSU is now a regional comprehensive university (RCU), what some call a ‘people’s university’ in recognition of its mission to give lower-and middle-income students access to higher education, not to mention to support regional economies and civic and cultural life.
PSU plays important roles in injecting ‘high impact practices’ into the regional economy. We lower the barriers to admission to a higher education. We prize teaching and student-centered projects. We enroll a large proportion of underrepresented students—including veterans, adult learners, ethnic minorities, first-generation students, and immigrants.
PSU was founded in 1871 under the Morrill Act (1862) signed by President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War to fund public colleges focused on ‘agriculture and the mechanical arts’. As part of the University System of New Hampshire (USNH), PSU is also part of the hundred-plus innovative land-grant universities network, whose mission originally was—within the context of the liberal arts—to teach practical engineering, agriculture, and science and to accelerate the rise of America’s nineteenth-century ‘Industrial Revolution’. These institutions generated the transformative innovations needed to propel America’s emergence as economic world leader by 1900, and are doing the same thing today in the digital age.
In 2015, Donald L. Birx became the 15th president of Plymouth State University. His vision was to restructure the university to become more innovative and entrepreneurial around Integrated Cross-Disciplinary Clusters:
We truly are creating a 21st Century University built around the key principles of exploration and discovery and innovation and entrepreneurship, Donald Birx said in 2016.
The University launched an experiment to implement university-wide Learning Model based around innovation and entrepreneurship. The University announced organisational changes that did away with academic departments, schools, colleges, deans and chairs in favour of interdisciplinary Integrated Clusters.
At PSU, Clusters are defined as a trans-departmental units of faculty, staff and students ‘who come together with the intention to engage in collaborative, interdisciplinary work that transcends or takes advantage of individual disciplines’.
Academic disciplines at PSU are no longer organisationally locked behind silos. Faculty and students may choose to actively participate in multiple clusters.
In 2020, Donald L. Birx, together with the Innovation & Entrepreneurship Cluster, has started to review the role of clusters, particularly within the adverse environments of declining student numbers, not to mention the Corona Virus pandemic, which has devastated the economy and society.
This is a case analysis of how an American regional comprehensive university can advance a new Learning Model that diffuses the tension between departments while advancing an innovation and entrepreneurship agenda.
Over Winter and Spring 2019, I have released part by part a series of posts about how a regional comprehensive university can accelerate campus-wide growth of innovation and entrepreneurship throughout all disciplines. Part 1 is the abstract and summary. In Part 2, we recount the history of Plymouth State University and outline its innovative and novel learning model. We review the structural problems that forced PSU to launch an audacious experiment, a university-wide learning model based on Innovation & Entrepreneurship and on Integrated Clusters. Part 3 examines PSU's opportunity to become a more enterprising institution drawing upon cross-disciplinary programs with diverse missions. In Part 4, we see how the 'Enterprising Mind-Set' and 'Design Habit of Mind' can accelerate the institution's transformation into an Entrepreneurial University. Part 5 introduces a learning model called TIDE -- Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship -- that allows students to design interdisciplinary majors such as Dance Entrepreneurship, Meteorological Innovation, History Business, Graphics Enterprises, and so forth. Part 6, still to be written at this date, outlines that trials and triumphs of PSU's bold experiment in Integrated Clusters Pedagogy.
A previous version of this article was originally presented at the 10th International Conference on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Small Business (IICIES 2018), Wellington, New Zealand, December 10–11, 2018. In New Zealand English. Author: Howard H. Frederick, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Entrepreneurship Cluster, Plymouth State University, New Hampshire, USA.
Purpose—The purpose is to discuss the implementation of a design-driven ‘enterprise education’ program within two contexts: (1) a novel learning model emphasising innovation and entrepreneurship within an American regional comprehensive university; (2) a novel learning structure eliminating departments, school, and colleges in favour of a cross-disciplinary approach—in favour of an Integrated Cluster model.
Methodology/approach—The paper describes a novel entrepreneurship education learning model called Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship (TIDE). This singular case study reviews best practices in entrepreneurship education and proposes a course of study specific to an Integrated Cluster learning model. It focuses on the history and context of the case institution and concludes with a discussion of the problematics of implementing such a programme.
Findings—Design-based entrepreneurship education is used widely to promote creativity-and innovation-driven regional economic development. We profile the evolution of Plymouth State University, which has broken down academic silos by reorganizing the curriculum around cross-disciplinary Integrated Clusters. This is a case analysis of how an American regional comprehensive university can advance a new Learning Model that diffuses the tension between departments while advancing an innovation and entrepreneurship agenda.
Keywords—Entrepreneurship education, design-driven pedagogy, transformative innovation, regional comprehensive university, land-grant university, start-up, integrated clusters, educational philosophy, practice-based approach.
Here, we recount the institutional history of Plymouth State University and outline its innovative and novel learning model.
This story is similar to other case analyses across the world that have examined the implementation design-based entrepreneurship education. The present author finds himself helping to build a design-based entrepreneurship education programme at Plymouth State University, an American state university in New Hampshire. Located in the Boston metropolitan area, Plymouth State University started as a teachers college, became a training ground for agriculture, teaching, business, and industry. PSU is now a regional comprehensive university (RCU), what some call a ‘people’s university’ in recognition of its mission to give lower-and middle-income students access to higher education, not to mention to support regional economies and civic and cultural life. About 430 regional comprehensive universities are spread across U.S. states and territories. Forty per cent of them are historically black.
Regional comprehensive universities play important roles in injecting ‘high impact practices’ into the regional economy. They lower the barriers to admission to a higher education. They prize teaching and student-centered projects over research. They enroll the largest proportion of underrepresented—including veterans, adult learners, ethnic minorities, first-generation students, and immigrants. Regional comprehensive universities buoy area economies and respond to regional workforce needs. RCU’s confer 30% of business degrees, 26% of computer and information sciences degrees, 31% of foreign languages degrees, and 27% of mathematics degrees. Regional universities also act as incubators where entrepreneurs and business leaders can receive support and faculty expertise. ‘RCU Curriculum Transformation’ studies are emerging.
In terms of PSU’s institutional context, at times, such universities are sometimes unfairly belittled as an “undistinguished middle child” of higher education. RCU’s have sought during the last twenty years a way out of that characterization. The wrong ‘solution’ was chosen: to elevate research standards or imitate elite institutions. A better solution would be to dedicate the mission to regional economic improvement. One solution would be for New Hampshire’s General Court (Legislature) to enhance support, so PSU can continue to pursue its distinctive missions of enlarging college access and serving the economic and civic needs of surrounding regions.
In historical terms, PSU was founded in 1871 under the Morrill Act (1862) signed by President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The Morrill Act gave 30,000 acres of Federal land within each Congressional district, whose proceeds could be used to fund public colleges focused on ‘agriculture and the mechanical arts’. As part of the University System of New Hampshire (USNH), PSU is also part of the hundred-plus land-grant universities network, whose mission originally was—within the context of the liberal arts—to teach practical engineering, agriculture, and science and to accelerate the rise of America’s nineteenth-century ‘Industrial Revolution’. These institutions generated the transformative innovations needed to propel America’s emergence as economic world leader by 1900.
Plymouth State University serves New Hampshire and the New England region (USA). In AY2018, PSU enrolled 4,100 undergraduates and 750 graduate students in undergraduate, masters, and doctoral programmes. Forty-three per cent of the student body is first-generation students and 39% of students are low income.
Since 2015, structural problems in the US economy have seen PSU facing many challenges. At 43 years, New Hampshire has the second highest median age (nationally it is 38). The 18–64 workforce is abandoning the state. Meanwhile, New Hampshire has a very low unemployment rate. Expanding economic productivity, or even keeping it steady, appears difficult without an influx of young blood. New Hampshire is running out of teenagers. The University’s biggest problems are declining enrolments, rising tuition, and dwindling youth population. Student debt has soared, the result of loans to cover the difference. Devastating also is the fact that New Hampshire higher education has experienced years of cuts and flat funding, and the overall funding remains lowest per capita in the country, roughly equal to pre-Recession levels.
It was at this point in 2015 that Donald L. Birx became the 15th president of Plymouth State University. His vision was to restructure the university to become more innovative and entrepreneurial around Integrated Cross-Disciplinary Clusters:
‘We truly are creating a 21st Century University built around the key principles of exploration and discovery and innovation and entrepreneurship.’
With a background in complex systems and artificial intelligence, Birx had had experience with clusters at the University of Houston, where he served as vice president for research. ‘Clusters allow a regional comprehensive university to be first class nationally in education and research in the interdisciplinary areas in which the university and community have unique strengths’, Birx wrote.
By 2016, the University launched an audacious experiment—one where no other college or university has dared to go—to implement university-wide Learning Model based around innovation and entrepreneurship.
Biting first the bitter pill, the process saw redundancies, buyouts, and a ten-per cent cut in employees. A University Review and Strategic Allocation process (URSA) was followed by a University Re-invention Initiative (URI). Bearing in mind that smaller programs can play a key role in growing clusters, the process nonetheless deleted twenty undergraduate programs. Together with graduate program deletions, this represented a twenty-three per cent reduction in credit-bearing programmes.
Especially daring was what happened next.
Plymouth State University announced organisational changes that abolished all academic departments, schools, colleges, deans and chairs in favour of an academic cluster model composed of seven interdisciplinary Integrated Clusters. Clusters are defined as a trans-departmental units of faculty, staff and students ‘who come together with the intention to engage in collaborative, interdisciplinary work that transcends or takes advantage of individual disciplines’. Plymouth State University is the only higher education institution in the United States that is ‘clusterising’ its curriculum.
Academic disciplines at PSU are no longer organisationally locked behind silos with minimal interaction across disciplines. Membership in any given cluster may change from semester to semester as faculty follow their interests. Faculty may choose to actively participate in multiple clusters. Clusters focus on working together and with community partners to engage students and faculty in addressing solutions for the community, region, state, and beyond. PSU’s Integrated Clusters include:
What does that mean in terms of curriculum?
Students can still choose a traditional major, such as biology, but rather than being in a ‘biology department’, that major now falls within the ‘Exploration and Discovery’ cluster, which contains the former departments of Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Biology, Information Technology, Interdisciplinary Studies, Mathematics, Meteorology, and Psychology.
An example of synergies that this new learning model has created is in the Arts & Technology cluster. The Plymouth region is a very strong arts and theatre area. Equally, technology is a powerful player since the technology hub Boston is within driving distance. The novel idea in this cluster was that the Arts can complement Technology. Both are using new product design, manufacturing, entertainment, modelling and training. Together, arts and technology comprise the ‘STEAM disciplines’—science, technology, engineering, math—and “A” for “arts”. Advocates point to research showing how the STEAM approach enriches engineering education. For example, aeronautic engineers improve their practice by learning how to play a musical instrument.
In the PSU Integrated Clusters Learning Model, clusters do overlap, but the ‘Innovation & Entrepreneurship’ (I&E) cluster overlaps all clusters (see Figure), meaning all students might be exposed to it. The underlying motivation of the new learning model is that all students—be they in art or zoology—can graduate with the ability to understand how to develop and implement entrepreneurial and innovative ideas, no matter what their discipline.
To launch PSU’s new learning model, faculty developed four tools to accelerate the adoption of this new learning model. Together, these tools provide a pathway for students from launch through implementation of a cluster-based educational enterprise. The tools are:
- First-Year Seminar experience introduces students to cluster learning focussed on a challenge question (‘wicked’ or ‘unscripted’ problems), carries out a team-based interdisciplinary project, explores learning and research methodologies, and relates how the cluster model works.
- Open Labs combine seemingly divergent strands of study by placing students in team project learning with external community and business leaders to create innovations and new discoveries.
- ‘Themed’ General Education. Previously students simply picked from a list. Now these courses span clusters and connect at the end through a Senior Capstone project.
- In their third or fourth year, students take an Integrated Capstone Experience that bookends the First-Year Seminar and integrates the depth and breadth of learning over the last four years.
So far, so good, one would say. A strong start of this collective initiative of all faculty and staff at the University. But recalling PSU’s poet laureate Robert Frost would say:
‘Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.’
In this case study, PSU’s ‘predicament’ is an opportunity to become a more enterprising institution. Plymouth State University aims to build an ‘Entrepreneurial University’, a concept driven primarily by Burton R. Clark, the great sociologist of higher education, and Henry Etzkowitz, a leading scholar in innovation studies. An entrepreneurial university (with multiple missions for teaching, research, and economic and social development) can push a university like PSU in the continued progress of American ingenuity.
Entrepreneurial universities have acquired the status of a key concept for smart regions. This is due to their role in harnessing education, research, and engagement for beneficial. An entrepreneurial university is one that contributes and provides leadership in creating entrepreneurial thinking, actions, institutions and capital of its students, staff, and faculty.
What do we know about entrepreneurship education? Best practice now comes from global contemporary and historic examples. Universities can and do build entrepreneurial ecosystems based on an ‘enterprising mindset’ learning model.
The spread of entrepreneurship education as a learning model.
Teaching entrepreneurship is not new—it was well underway by the early 1980s. From the beginning, there was considerable consensus that entrepreneurshipwas distinguishable from management education,and that studying it can positively influence entrepreneurial attributes. By the end of the millennium, there was a ranking of entrepreneurship schools. Now, entrepreneurship education has spread widely around the world, has diversified its teaching approaches, is proud of a vigorous research literature, and has become an academic discipline. Baptista and Naia’s literature review shows that theoretical contributions about entrepreneurship education have been increasing and improving. 
One of this field’s paradoxes is that entrepreneurship is offered predominantly only in business schools, even though it does not really belong there. If entrepreneurship is siloed (segregated) in the business faculty, then it cannot reach out to the broad array of disciplines, with potentially more enterprising potential.
Nonetheless, entrepreneurship education is now expanding into arts, sciences, design, engineering, and most any subject. Entrepreneurship education is becoming university-wide, drawing on cross-disciplinary programmes with diverse missions, rather than existing simply as a subspecialty in business programmes.
What’s more, there is a correlation between entrepreneurship and education. Exposure to entrepreneurship education leads to higher levels of self-efficacy, which leads to entrepreneurial intent. Entrepreneurs are more likely to have received training and education than the rest of the working-age population.
Entrepreneurship education is effective for business students and STEM students. More than one-third of business majors want to start a business, but one-sixth of non-business students also want to strike out on their own.  Business students generally have the least enterprising ideas compared to students in arts, science, and elsewhere.
Behaviourally, it also makes sense. Studies show a positive effect of entrepreneurship education on attitudes and perceived behavioural control. It significantly affects student attitudes towards entrepreneurial activity. Lackeus suggests that it triggers emotional events in students, which in turn develop entrepreneurial competencies. For example, requiring a student to create a venture or create value for someone leads to frequent open lab interaction, a sense of relevancy and meaning (as well as numerous incidents of frustration, anger and despair). These activities lead to the development of competencies such as tolerance of ambiguity, increased persistence, increased self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial passion.
Starting an (ad)venture of any type—be it social, business, community, or environmental—requires an enterprising mind-set, lots of passion, and deep knowledge. Entrepreneurs reach into their hearts and minds to find that special idea or innovation that excites them. When they find it, nothing can stop this ‘force of nature’. ‘I can do this’, they say to themselves. ‘I can design a solution to their pain or problem.’
People typically ask two questions of entrepreneurship educators:
- Does an entrepreneur really need teaching? The answer is actually mixed. True, there are many entrepreneurs (maybe as high as 10–15 per cent in the USA) who drop out of school. They lack the patience to learn (nor did their teachers have patience with them). Other research shows that entrepreneurs have is a higher rate of ADHD. They simply found it difficult to focus and complete their schoolwork. Even illiterate and dyslexic entrepreneurs succeed (by learning visually and relying on others). Then there are teenage non-conformists. Modest rule-breaking never hurt an entrepreneur! Bottom line is that education and entrepreneurship are highly correlated—the more education you have, the more likely you will intend to exploit opportunities. 
- Yes, but can you learn to be an entrepreneur? Again, yes and no. You most definitely can learn it if someone helps you discover that spark and passion within yourself. What good teachers do is create a world where students can experiment/experience being an entrepreneur and cultivating a creative, confident habit of mind using the scientific method to identify and exploit opportunities. In those precious minutes together with learners, entrepreneurship educators supply just-in-time content that is both enabling and experiential, where you are challenged by the real problems, have access to tools and techniques to work through those problems, and, ultimately, learn the theory, process and practice of being innovative and enterprising. 
Entrepreneurship education is actually a philosophy of life. Nobel Prize winner in Economics Amartya Sen once said: ‘The highest expression of freedom is the ability to choose what kind of life one wants to lead. Enterprising activity is the objective and the primary means of enhancing human freedom. The usefulness of ‘value creation’ lies in the things that it allows us to do—the substantive freedoms it helps us to achieve.
To build an entrepreneurial university, certain ecosystem components should be in place. To use academic language, institutions must build and improve their University-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystem(U-BEE), those interdependent actors and factors around a university that facilitate productive entrepreneurship. These components increase the ‘creative capital’ in the regional economy, and mobilise and transfer the enterprising mind-set to students and faculty throughout the University. An especially important component is women entrepreneurs’ and disadvantaged entrepreneurs’ participation, as those vary significantly from those of men.
Here are these validated components mapped onto PSU in 2019:
Alignment of institutional objectives
Ongoing curriculum innovation
Innovation & Entrepreneurship Cluster
Courses in entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship student club
Networking events for entrepreneurs
Maker spaces where entrepreneurs can interact
Participation of the community and the business community
Strategic vision statement on the entrepreneurial university
Centre for Enterprise Education / Teaching Institute
Entrepreneurship major, minor or certificate
Gender imbalance plan
Entrepreneurship courses for non-business majors
Entrepreneurship floor in dorm
Entrepreneurship research activities
Student venture investment fund
In this section, we discuss the two ways of knowing that are central to any Innovation & Entrepreneurship learning model. They are mind-set and design.
The enterprising mind-set
The enterprising mind-set is a habit of mind based on perception, cognition and mental process and used across the widest range of human activities to frame ill-defined yet complex problems and to solve them through products, ventures, services, business models. Another word for solutions is innovation.
The enterprising mind-set plays a significant role in human evolution. Like their biological analogues, ‘entrepreneur-organisms’ develop and retain information useful to survival and progress. Risk-tolerant, growth-promoting traits generate an evolutionary advantage and their increased occurrence in the gene pool accelerated the pace of progress. However, risk-tolerant traits compete with inherited risk-averse traits, which equally can gain evolutionary advantage.
This may all sound a bit Darwinian. But Joseph Schumpeter, the father of entrepreneurship theory, developed a theory of evolutionary entrepreneurship. To him, the material world evolves perpetually as entrepreneurs destroy equilibrium and introduce innovations. Evolutionary entrepreneurship is the spirit of creativity and inventiveness, of curiosity and daring, of calculated risk against gain.
PSU’s Innovation & Entrepreneurship Cluster’s mission statement says: ‘By promoting the enterprising habit of mind, we design solutions to the widest range of social, educational, commercial, and environmental problems. We encourage our students to take risks, learn from failures, see opportunity in problems and act.
We often use the two expressions ‘habit of mind’ and ‘mind-set’ interchangeably. A habit of mind is that critical attribute of intelligent human beings that seeks information but also knows how to act on it. It is a ‘disposition toward behaving intelligently when confronted with problems, the answers to which are not immediately known’. A mind-set has a more collective connotation. Margolis likens this to Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which one mind-set supplants another. As far as Habits of Mind go, Art Costa’s productiveness greatly accelerated por thinking and research in mind-set theory, but he identified only sixteen habits of mind.
Many people misconstrue the word ‘enterprise’. Rather than being some firm or company, today the word enterprise (or enterprising) is used as an ‘attitude to life, an attitude of exploring, of developing, of leading and of taking initiatives’. It is no accident that the Star Trek crew flew the ‘Starship Enterprise’ using such entrepreneurial traits as:
‘Boldly go where no [one] has gone before’.
‘Space… the final frontier’
‘To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations’.
Enterprise—as in an ‘enterprising personality’—is the process of identifying, developing and bringing a vision to life, be it an innovative idea or simply a better way of doing something, in all fields of human endeavour. Think of how many self-employed professions there are—artists, photographers, musicians, designers, writers, financial advisors, analysts and interior designers. Beyond this, think of the creative and innovative people in arts, civil society, not-for-profits, community trusts and social enterprises. From artist to zoologist, some people have the enterprising mentality.
In the literature, this is known as ‘Enterprise Education’. Enterprise Education is defined as the ‘process of developing students in a manner that provides them with an enhanced capacity to generate ideas, and the behaviours, attributes, and competencies to make them happen.’ An enterprising mindset is marked by imagination, initiative and readiness to undertake new endeavours; by a confident focus on a particular opportunity and by the ability to quickly act – all the while experimenting how to shape the opportunity within an social enterprise or business model.
From the perspective of trait theory, the behaviours of taking initiatives, seeking opportunities, taking responsibility, taking risks beyond security, and having the tenacity to push an idea through to reality combine into a special perspective that permeates entrepreneurs from all walks of life.
A PSU study within the I&E cluster outlined a tentative list of competencies of an enterprising mind-set important for students at the university:
- Self-efficacy—‘I can do this, and I can make a difference.’
- Collaboration—‘I know how to build a team and share roles.’Identify opportunities—‘I can spot and validate problems and solutions.’
- Empathy—‘I can stand in the shoes of another and see their perspective.’
- Design perspective—‘I am a master of human-cecompetencntred design.’
- Communication—‘I can tell a compelling story about an opportunity.’
- Representation—‘I can build what I can imagine and get feedback from others.’ 
Ultimately, the success of a learning model based around Innovation & Entrepreneurship depends on whether student (and staff) develop and practice an ‘enterprising mind-set’ to creating ventures and (ad)ventures. The learning model simply provides interventions that generate supporting behaviours, attributes and competencies that are likely to have a significant impact on the employability of students. The most widely used definition of employability is ‘a set of achievements - skills, understandings and personal attributes - that make individuals more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations’, which in turn benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy.
Habits of mind at PSU
Within the context of PSU learners, LeBlanc et al. (2017) identified four mind-sets as learning outcomes of a new PSU General Education program that would be helpful to a student long after graduation. They were:
- Self-efficacy—‘I can do this, and I can make a difference.’
- Collaboration—‘I know how to build a team and share roles.’
- Identify opportunities—‘I can spot and validate problems and solutions.’
- Empathy—‘I can stand in the shoes of another and see their perspective.’
- Design perspective—‘I am a master of human-cecompetencntred design.’
- Communication—‘I can tell a compelling story about an opportunity.’ 
These four chosen habits of mind at PSU are in some cases amalgams of other schemas but particularly Art Costa’s ‘16 Habits of Mind’. For example, Purposeful Communication is similar to Costa’s ‘Thinking and Communicating with Clarity and Precision’; and Self-regulated Learning resembles ‘Remaining Open to Continuous Learning’.
But there are more habits of mind than Costa conceived. Like PSU, other researchers have combined them variously:
- Patterning Habit of Mind teaches that what we call chaos is just patterns we haven’t recognized, that lead to opportunities
- Studio Habit of Mind empowers artists to produce gainfully.
- Engineering Habit of Mind addresses solutions to problems or improvements to current technologies or ways of doing things.
- Growth Habit of Mind (nothing to do with Business) means anyone can change with enough work
- Graduate Student Habit of Mind is a mysterious guild secret and sorcery (Graff, 2003, 191).
- American University claims there are five distinct habits of mind: Creative-Aesthetic Inquiry, Cultural Inquiry, Ethical Reasoning, Natural-Scientific Inquiry, and Socio-Historical Inquiry.
Designerly ‘ways of knowing’ – the design mind-set
Design thinking is the approach to innovation that marries the core principles of design with best customer- or stakeholder-centric practice. Design thinking is the ultimate form of creative enterprise because it uses creativity and imagination to achieve breakthrough innovations that solve real problems and create value for actual people. When students should be exposed to Enterprise & Design, it enhances their understanding of everything and accelerates their desire to be gainful.
What unites all great design thinkers is what famous American architect, systems theorist, designer, and inventor Buckminster Fuller called ‘anticipatory design science’, which he defined as human practice that would align men and women to the conscious design of our total environment, making Earth’s finite resources meet the needs of humanity without disrupting the ecological processes of the planet. What nobler cause than to use design and enterprise combined. Nobel laureate Herbert Simon agreed: ‘To design is to devise courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones’.
Since the early 1980s, design has been considered one of three ‘cultures of knowing’ in general education. The first two of course are science (as in physics or chemistry but also the social sciences) and the humanities (as in arts and history).
Does not design develop help students develop abilities in solving real-world, ill-defined problems? This has now become a creed: ‘Design Thinking is the new Liberal Arts.’ Design thinking helps overcome the false dichotomy between the humanities and science because it prepares students for the active creation of the new realities that science and the humanities have imagined as possible. But today, the study of design can equally tackle intractable human concerns just a forcefully as science and humanities.
Here is how design differs from science and humanities:
- Phenomenon being studied. While science studies the natural world, and humanities the realm of human experience, design’s major focus is the artificial, material world that surrounds us.
- Methods of enquiry. Science probes the natural world using controlled experiments, classification, and analysis. Humanities probes the human experience using criticism, evaluation, analogy, metaphor, and comparison. Design uses modelling, pattern-formation, synthesis, abductive logic, and convergent thinking to analyse and change the material world immediately surrounding us.
- Ontological beliefs and values. For the sciences, they are objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for ‘truth’. For the humanities the central values are subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for ‘justice’. Design employs practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and a concern for ‘appropriateness’. 
Design thinking uses creativity and imagination to achieve breakthrough innovations that solve real problems and create value for actual people. It crosses disciplines and can be considered part of general higher education. Like science and the humanities, design requires and develops unique innate abilities in solving real-world, ill-defined problems and requires unique forms of cognitive development.
A Rising TIDE Lifts All Boats
In this section, we bring together all the strands of the foregoing on entrepreneurship, enterprising mind-set, and habits of mind into a pedagogy that appeals to any discipline, from art to zoology.
During 2016-2017, staff in Plymouth State University’s Innovation & Entrepreneurship Cluster identified an opportunity to develop a Program in
Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship (TIDE).
PSU’s new TIDE program instils entrepreneurial will and enterprising mind-set into students of all majors. Essentially, TIDE’s model is Learning-through-creating-value-for-others. It teaches the needed design skills and entrepreneurial tools to create and grow ventures of any kind – art, social, business, and environmental ventures.
The aphorism ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’ means that all craft (programs, disciplines) at Plymouth State University from art to women’s students can rise when the University launches an inter-disciplinary TIDE program. How do we ‘raise PSU’s tide’ and ‘lift’ all the ‘boats’ around us? We create change. We as educators do so by being the rising tide lifting all within it.
TIDE aligns with the mission statement of the Innovation & Entrepreneurship Cluster: ‘By promoting the enterprising habit of mind, we design solutions to the widest range of social, educational, commercial, and environmental problems.’
Every discipline at Plymouth State University has enterprising students and faculty seeking to transform, innovate, design, and undertake. TIDE provides ways for all of PSU’s interdisciplinary clusters to design and start new ventures and adventures.
At PSU, this type of learning model would appeal to students whose persona we consider to be ‘Confidents’ and ‘Strivers’, those who are ambitious, organized and social; and who have a personal commitment to succeed. Here are some examples of interdisciplinary crossover that would appeal to those student profiles:
- Sustaining innovation props up and temporarily fixes systems and processes that are failing, but it does little for the longer term advancement.
- Disruptive innovation shakes things up but is eventually mainstreamed to help sustain existing systems.
- Only transformative innovation can deliver a fundamental shift towards new patterns of viability in tune with our aspirations for the future. TI accelerates a transformational effect on business, society, culture, and the natural environment.
Parsing TIDE’s name, we have first ‘transformative innovation’ (TI), the most advanced form of innovation.
Examples of transformative innovations are numerous: the plough, welfare state, radar, plastic, department store, infant formula, contraceptive pill, antibiotics, to mention a few.
Enterprising colleagues and students throughout PSU—whatever their discipline—find common ground in designing transformative innovations and in launching life-changing ventures of all types. Beyond the campus, transformative innovation requires multi-actors such as firms, suppliers, universities and knowledge institutes, government, public interest groups and users. A good example of TI are the Sustainable Development Goals published in 2015. These Goals need far-reaching changes in technology and will give rise to entirely new sectors.
Throughout the world, there is enough youthful entrepreneurial energy to build a world that overcomes the challenges that we face. The term ‘transformative’ describes those changes in the economy, environment, social welfare—indeed entire systems on Earth.
The second part of the TIDE brand is DE. ‘Design-based Entrepreneurship’ is a pedagogical approach using project-based exercises that turn user-centred problems into opportunities. DE uses human-centred design optimised to exploit new opportunities within resource-constrained and uncertain contexts. ‘Through design we launch better start-ups. Through entrepreneurship we become better designers’.
The roots of design-based entrepreneurship theory go back to two streams of literature: the design literature, dating back to the 1960s; and entrepreneurship theory literature, starting around the turn of the millennium. Combining the two approaches, we now speak of ‘designerly ways of venturing’ in the material world of artefacts using pattern formation, synthesis and modelling. Design entrepreneurs value practicality, ingenuity, empathy and appropriateness. The designerly mind-set is an extension of the enterprising mind-set.
Design thinking requires empathy. Empathy means the ability to put yourself into your customer’s/client’s/stakeholder’s shoes to understand problems from their perspective, to uncover their pains and problems (including some pains they didn’t even know they had), and to generate unexpected solutions (including ones that they had not thought of). ‘Empathic’ means having a sensitivity to other people’s pains and emotions.
In terms of logic, design is quite distinct from science and humanities in its approach to knowledge. Design thinking uses modelling, pattern-formation, synthesis, abductive logic, and convergent thinking to analyse and change the material world immediately surrounding us. New ventures come into being not by traditional logic (deduction or induction) but through ‘logical leaps of the mind’, known as abductive logic. This logic is appropriate when you are confronted with an incomplete set of observations and you have to make hypotheses using the best information available. Then you test your hunches until you have the likeliest possible explanation for the group of observations. Cross calls this ‘design intelligence’.
Five TIDE Courses – Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship
I&E’s Curriculum and Instruction Committee used its expert access to entrepreneurship education research and teaching to design five courses comprising a TIDE degree. At PSU, these five required courses could be a major within business, an IDS major (Interdisciplinary Studies), a Cluster Major or a campus-wide minor. These are the five key pillars of knowledge and expertise that comprise a TIDE graduate: (Syllabi available upon request.)
Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Diverse pathways lead to becoming a social, business, or environmental entrepreneur. Foundational knowledge of entrepreneurship and innovation, creation of new ventures, and the history and evolution of entrepreneurship help students find their path to entrepreneurship. Surveying principles, theories, and practice of entrepreneurship, students build understanding of the key tasks, skills, and attitudes to become a successful entrepreneur.
Design thinking applies creativity to come up with novel solutions to tough problems. Students learn to identify opportunities and practice design thinking to construct ‘minimum viable products.’ Venture start-up follows when design thinking leads to marketable solutions. Students learn to build and validate a value proposition, devise a business model, and employ storytelling to pitch their solutions to funders.
Working in teams, students practice entrepreneurial skills to create, organize, and manage a project with social impact, either globally or locally. The overall goal is to take entrepreneurial action to improve quality of life and economic well-being through service organizations in fields as diverse as the environment, animal rights, health, and community building.
Students learn how to deal with growth challenges in settings using analytical skills, techniques, and decision-making tools. Using simulation and case analysis, participants learn how to face new issues and decisions as they unfold over the life-cycle of a company/product. Students write a ‘Lean Business Plan’ and analyse it from both the entrepreneur and investor perspectives.
Capstone: Lean Incubation and Business Launch
Students build and validate a repeatable and scalable business model based on transformative innovation and value creation using especially previous knowledge in design, marketing, and financial feasibility. Students are expected to write a ‘bankable’ lean business plan, and initiate the process of incubation based on the validation of the model in real market.
Entrepreneurship educators do not necessarily come from the business disciplines; they can come from any discipline. These are the teachers who have repeatedly helped students solve their ‘wicked’ problems. TIDE uses new and different formative and summative approaches to assessment. In designing and delivering assessment, enterprise educators generally use exercises to solve what entrepreneurs call ‘pains’. Look around you and imagine how many things are solving your pains and frustrations. Design reduces pain. Design satisfies need. Design creates value. Design changes behaviour. Teachers generally try to increase the experiential anxiety as these exercises proceed over time.
In TIDE, learners from all disciplines build teams to carry out opportunity recognition and evaluation exercises. Teams prepare a value proposition, validation, pretotyping, business modelling, and story-telling. During the course, students are accompanied by advisers (faculty and community), who do not actively influence the process but give feedback and suggestions to indirectly instruct. Some other considerations include:
At PSU, through the Open Labs, students are challenged to create value for others by asking ‘for whom should we create value today’? Teachers use a variety of canvasses to measure opportunity recognition, value proposition, validation, design of a minimal viable product, business modelling, and storytelling. These one-page simplify and facilitate teachers’ practice of progressive education, which they sometimes perceive as too complex to manage and too difficult and risky in terms of student assessment and potential neglect of important traditional education values.
We expect TIDE to significantly increase PSU’s enrollment numbers through new majors, and increase in transfer students. We also expect TIDE will positively affect our retention rates. We will likely see an increase in double majoring, increasing the interdisciplinary development of our majors. With the course offerings all at 4 credits, more high impact learning experiences are built into each course through open lab opportunities to connect with practitioners in the field, including alumni. However, students should note that it does require completion of all four content area courses, and an internship. We do expect that with the introduction of this major there will be a shift of students from other disciplines who are venturing, be it social, environmental, or business. We have every expectation that enrollments will increasing over four years. We also expect to see an upward trend in students who are double-majoring.
We anticipate generating cohorts of enterprising students to launch their own ventures at PSU, be it social, business, or environmental. We can anticipate that at graduation, about 20% of PSU TIDE students will be running their own ventures, and this figure will grow with the years. Our forward metrics include alumni-founded companies, new jobs created and retained. We document the number of start-ups and new products introduced. We expect an increase in faculty research in the fields of innovation and design. We also expect follow-on funding from government and private sources. All of this will benefit the APEX Accelerator as well.
Our existing faculty within the I&E cluster has the experience and capability of creating and delivering this new program. No additional faculty lines are expected to be required initially to implement our 2-year plan. However, as enrolments increase over the next two-three years, we will need another full-time faculty to teach TIDE’s courses. No new library resources are required. No additional technology tools or infrastructure is needed to accommodate these curriculum changes.
Research and experience show that entrepreneurship education funding has a return on investment. This is done through promoting innovative mechanisms to leverage partnerships with corporations, NGOs, global institutions, and foundations, as well as with individuals. Robust and innovative funding sources such as venture and family capital, angel investors, and emergent crowd-funding markets facilitate access to capital. Gaining admission to the Babson Collaborative would open doors to PSU to funding in New England. Governments throughout the world have invested significant resources to promote entrepreneurship education. We look forward to fruitful collaborations with New Hampshire High Technology Council; Live Free and Start; Stay/Work/Play; Veteran Entrepreneurship, Self-Employment and Small Business Development; New Hampshire High Tech Council, nashuaHUB Business Incubator, Dartmouth Entrepreneurial Network (DEN), NH Small Business Development Center, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation; and others. An alliance with Blue Zones ‘longevity hotspots’ helps transform communities into thriving places to live, work, eat, and play.Program Demand
Innovation challenges facing New Hampshire
TIDE and PSU can help solve challenges that New Hampshire faces today. Here are those challenges and possible innovations that TIDE can accelerate:
- Demographic: More than half of NH is 40+ (behind only VT and ME). The other half is leaving. >> Focus on new business models to innovate recreation, natural landscapes and cultural centers
- Agriculture: Attrition in family farms. Shrinking growing seasons due to climate change >> High-tech, hyper-local, all-year permanent agriculture behind Prospect Hall.
- Energy: Rising energy costs are reason top employers moving out >> Solar and wind technologies; small power facilities leading to new energy ventures
- Education: Native enrollment at state schools is abysmal >> Create new VR-amplified Next Generation Learning; Integrated Clusters; competency-based education; technologies and distance learning
- Advanced Manufacturing: Educate more generalist manufacture-entrepreneurs; we can repeat the “Kamen Effect”; open up new fields
- Tourism/Culture: Changing habits of consumers, impacts of climate change >> three-season attractions; electric sports vehicles; fish and wildlife resources; theatre, music and galleries
- Future Shock: Star, Work, Play; Cryptocurrency marketplace in NH is huge; Free State Project "Liberty in Our Lifetime"; driverless cars.
In October 2017, the CoBA Board of Advisors discussed the change in the Core of Business Education and its impact on employers. Unanimously, they agreed on 16 Success Factors that they seek. Entrepreneurial cognition maps well to Success Factors identified by Board of Advisors. See Video ‘What skills, abilities and mind-sets do ourgraduates need when they enter the workforce?
‘As an entrepreneur and graduate of Plymouth State University, I believe the TIDE program would be very beneficial for today's students. The motive of self-starting, motivating and directing yourself is crucial in today's business world - whether or not students choose to pursue a full entrepreneurial path following college, the skills learned in his program will give students an advantage in their field. The core principles of entrepreneurship can be applied to any field of business and I believe it's crucial for PSU Students to have a base understanding/development of entrepreneurial skills to thrive in today's quickly changing business frontier.’ Ryan Chadwick, Entrepreneur, PSU Business Advisory Board, Grey Lady Inc.
The proposed Bachelor of Science in Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship (TIDE) is in alignment with, and a fundamental enabler of, the University’s Vision Statement. The Statement has two key elements: 1.) transforming students through advanced practices and engaged learning; and, 2.) connecting with community and business partners for economic development, technological advances, healthier living, and cultural enrichment. The proposed program also aligns with the University’s Business Advisory Board’s depiction of key skills and knowledges needed for success in virtually every career path a student might choose. An enterprising mindset and entrepreneurship are highly valued in all organizations, from sole proprietorships to global entities. PSU's entrepreneurial ecosystem (U-BEE) aligns with the broad, university-wide, approach PSU seems to be embarking on. Randy Christian, Intrapreneur, Member of Business Advisory Board, former Johnson & Johnson
‘As a leading scholar and builder in the entrepreneurship education ecosystem, Howard Frederick has again designed a fantastic program in the Bachelor of Science in Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship (TIDE). The strong foundation combines a practical development and implementation of an entrepreneurial mindset with a strong conceptual analysis, which Dr. Frederick has used to create a program that reflect his depth of knowledge and experience in the entrepreneurship domain. Specifically, I highly endorse the content and pedagogical approach Dr. Frederick has demonstrated in the lesson plans and syllabi. These reflect best practices in our field, such as design thinking and lean methodologies, and will surely prepare PSU students for entering the post-college world!’ Dr Doan Winkel, John J. Kahl Sr. Chair in Entrepreneurship & Director of the Muldoon Center for Entrepreneurship, John Carroll University, Ohio USA
‘Howard Frederick, without a doubt, a leading scholar in entrepreneurship education, carefully designs this program that provides an extraordinary breakthrough improving and elucidating our current conceptions of “traditional entrepreneurship higher education program”. The Bachelor of Science in Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship (TIDE) provides a state-of-the-art approach not only based on a strong conceptual analysis but also, and more relevant, practical implementation of entrepreneurial mind-set for all the students that will undertake the unique experience to be part of TIDE. For University-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, TIDE is a key component.’ Dr Jose Ernesto Amorós, National Director of Doctoral Programs at EGADE Business School, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico City (ranked No. 1 in Latin America).
‘The proposed Bachelor of Science in Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship represents both contemporary thinking and practice in the domain of entrepreneurship education. As one on the world’s leading educators in our domain, I have no doubt Howard and his team with indeed enable students to become the sole proprietor of their destinies through supporting a process of calculated adventuring.’ Dr Colin Jones, Senior Lecturer in Entrepreneurship, Queensland University of Technology.
As a highly respected academic colleague and Entrepreneur, Howard Frederick has been a trailblazer in Entrepreneurship education in New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, Europe and the US. It does not come as a surprise therefore that his proposed Bachelor of Science in Transformative Innovation & Design Entrepreneurship (TIDE) program has all the elements of a winning formula for Entrepreneurship in action at academic level. The program is both very comprehensive in theory and layout as well as highly practical in implementation and delivery and I have no doubt that Howard and his team make it into a big success. Dr. Hermina Burnett, Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University School of Management and Governance; and Lecturing Fellow, University of Adelaide, both of South Australia.
‘I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to endorse this course at Plymouth State University. I have perused the proposal documents, and happy to reflect on the significant and professional approach to the development of this entrepreneurship education program. I am of the professional opinion that the course (TIDE) aligns well with the strategic direction of the PSU Integrated Clusters (Arts, Health, Justice, Tourism, Entrepreneurship and Innovation). In particular, the mission and value, rationale and alignment to PSU mission and goals, COBA strategic plan and URI University Re-investment initiative fit appropriately and enhance an enterprising mindset, transformative innovation and design entrepreneurship approach. The proposed student learning outcomes are well articulated through the introduction of 5 new subjects (from Foundations to Senior Capstone), and content, pedagogy and assurance of learning are demonstrated through detailed lesson plans and overviews. The transformational innovation and design entrepreneurship is certainly a novel approach to developing an enterprising mindset! This programs reflects upon the experience and internationalisation of Professor Frederick's expertise in the entrepreneurship domain, certainly a reflection of best practice globally. In conclusion, my congratulations on developing a well-rounded and complete Bachelors course in entrepreneurship.’ Dr Alex Maritz, Professor of Entrepreneurship, La Trobe University.
‘The program presented is comprehensive yet appears sustainable in terms of the resources and modest number of new courses proposed. The justification for extending on Plymouth State University’s existing entrepreneurship and innovation eco-system is well argued, in itself blending innovative learning approaches with well-established pedagogy for entrepreneurship education, focused particularly on developing students’ self-efficacy in the field. I have personally known Professor Frederick since we first met in the late 1990s. For over a decade we collaborated successfully introducing postgraduate, undergraduate and support programmes in innovation-based entrepreneurship in New Zealand. He has continued his success with novel and effective programme introductions in Australia, Mexico, and the United States, whilst also producing a widely adopted international teaching text, now in its 5th edition. I have every confidence in endorsing the program’s success and the team that Howard would recruit to achieve implementation. Dr Peter J Mellalieu, Industrial Associate Professor, Otago Polytechnic, Auckland International Campus.
Comparability with other programs
TIDE’s content matches best practice globally. TIDE’s design draws heavily on North America’s 14th leading school of innovation and entrepreneurship, Monterrey (Mexico) Institute of Technology (ITESM). Each semester, Tec’s 120 entrepreneurship professors teach the subject to 8,000 students on 31 campuses. Thirty per cent of students graduate with a sales-generating business, and 68 per cent of alumni own a business within 25 years of graduation. Tec’s learning model also shows many other downstream benefits, such as alumni giving and loyalty, industry alignments, profitable incubators (including social incubators), and outstanding student recruitment.
Other colleges achieve similar metrics. Babson College shows that taking two or more core entrepreneurship elective courses positively influenced the intention to become an entrepreneur both at the time of graduation and long afterward. University of Arizona found that entrepreneurship students are three times more likely to be self-employed, have annual incomes 27 per cent higher, and own 62 per cent more assets than other graduates. At the National University of Singapore, entrepreneurship graduates have three times the propensity to start their own business or to be employed in small start-upcompanies, compared to their peers. At the University of Southern California, an average of 37 per cent of students in entrepreneurship launched businesses by the time they graduated.
Alignment to PSU’s mission and goals
TIDE is central to PSU’s vision to become a Destination University of Innovation. Our students develop ideas and solutions to world problems and become society’s global leaders within interdisciplinary strategic clusters, open labs, partnerships and through entrepreneurial, innovative, and experiential learning.Consistent with the general mission of Plymouth State University, TIDE seeks to produce well-rounded graduates who are equipped both to continue life-long learning, and enter the work force, as employers or employees. In addition, TIDE serves the surrounding community by collaborating with local and regional agencies to provide academic and research support. The fields of Entrepreneurship and Innovation engage exceptionally well with a variety of other disciplines.
Alignment with PSU’s Transformation to Clusters
Every PSU program that has enterprising students and faculty -- from astronomy to women’s studies – finds intersections with our pillars of transformation, innovation, design, and entrepreneurship. There are varied intersections between TIDE, our Cluster Partners, and other PSU programs. See Figure 3 TIDE intersections with other PSU disciplines. TIDE variously aligns with the new Learning Model:
- TIDE aligns with the Cluster mission statement: ‘By promoting the enterprising habit of mind, we design solutions to the widest range of social, educational, commercial, and environmental problems.’
- TIDE is a candidate ‘cluster major’ creating an integrated program of study. But it is important to note that the present submission is a new major within the School of Business.
- TIDE has the potential for diverse, interdisciplinary toolkits, projects, service learning, applied labs, assistantships, travel, research, practicum, internships, and special topics.
- TIDE promotes student recruitment and the University’s market positioning
Alignment with CoBA Strategic Plan
This new program proposal responds to the 2017 CoBA Strategic Plan, namely to:
Revise the Small Business Entrepreneurship option (in light of new hires), embedding social entrepreneurship in the curriculum and setting the stage for bringing entrepreneurship across the university curriculum.The decision was taken to invest in the undergraduate Small Business/Entrepreneurship option of Management. In spring 2017, the search for two faculty positions in Innovation and Entrepreneurship was successful in hiring one new faculty member who leads curricular development in the SB/E program.
Alignment with URI University Re-invention Initiative
TIDE’s strategic direction and program characteristics can be seen in its URI submission, which CoBA faculty votedunanimously on March 7, 2018 toendorse. TIDE is listed as Idea #127 in the URI Program Ideas document with an Action Path of 4 (further evaluation is indicated). Goals addressed were Recruitment (Program Enrollment, Alignment, etc.), Engagement (Retention, Persistence, etc.), Graduation (Timeliness, Connections/2+2, etc.), and Efficiency (Financial, Engaging Students, Course Enrollment, etc.)In the cumulated URI 2018 Program Ideas document, ‘entrepreneurship’ was mentioned repeatedly. This included Health Education, Art History, Arts & Technologies, Music Technology and Music Entrepreneurship, Dance Entrepreneurship. We confident that other disciples will follow.
Alignment with ACBSP Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs
As part of the grand curricular change, the new School of Business ‘Foundations Core’ is being re-designed with features such as alignment with general education “Connections”, a novel Signature Experience, team teaching, innovative course scheduling, and a new Business 360 gateway course. TIDE satisfies the ACBSP Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs’ standards related to the Undergraduate Common Professional Component, whereinbusiness programs recognize the interdisciplinary nature of knowledge when ‘the process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single (academic) discipline’. CPC seeks to promote innovation in the business curriculum and to challenge the outdated separation of disciplines.
 Indonesia: Kembaren, P., Simatupang, T. M., Larso, D., & Wiyancoko, D. (2014). Design Driven Innovation Practices in Design-preneur led Creative Industry. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 9(3), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718–27242014000300007; Larso, D., Yulianto, Y., Rustiadi, S., & Aldianto, L. (2009). Developing techno-preneurship program at the Center for Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Leadership (CIEL), School of Business and Management (SBM), Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Indonesia. PICMET ’09—2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, 1901–1908. http://bit.ly/2FGSw3c; Australia: Huq, A., & Gilbert, D. (2017). All the world’s a stage: transforming entrepreneurship education through design thinking. Education + Training, 59(2), 155–170. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/83608131.pdf; Germany: Huber, F., Peisl, T., Gedeon, S., & Brodie, J. (2016). Design thinking-based entrepreneurship education: How to incorporate design thinking principles into an entrepreneurship course. In ResearchGate. Leeds University. http://bit.ly/2B8Cnis; ; Slovenia: Desai, H. P. (2018). Integrating ownership and entrepreneurial mind-set in design education. In Cumulus Conference Proceedings Wuxi 2018 Diffused Transition & Design Opportunities. Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media. http://bit.ly/2FtQxir ; European schools: Val, E., Gonzalez, I., Iriarte, I., Beitia, A., Lasa, G., & Elkoro, M. (2017). A Design Thinking approach to introduce entrepreneurship education in European school curricula. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S754–S766. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353022; USA: Fry, A., Alexander, R., & Ladhib, S. (2017). Design-entrepreneurship in the post-recession economy: Parsons ELab, a Design School Incubator. Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Diseño y Comunicación No 64, 64, 175+. http://bit.ly/2Q7367G
 Cruz, Laura, Gillian D. Ellern, George Ford, Hollye Moss, and Barbara Jo White. “Navigating the Boundaries of the Scholarship of Engagement at a Regional Comprehensive University.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 17, no. 1 (2013): 3–26; McMahan, Shari. “Creating a Model for High Impact Practices at a Large, Regional, Comprehensive University: A Case Study.” Contemporary Issues in Education Research 8, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 111–16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058165; Selingo, Jeffrey. “Regional Public Colleges—the ‘Middle Children’ of Higher Ed—Struggle to Survive.” Washington Post, February 9, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/02/09/regional-public-colleges-the-middle-children-of-higher-ed-struggle-to-survive/;Somers, Patricia. “The Freshman Year: How Financial Aid Influences Enrollment and Persistence at a Regional Comprehensive University.” College Student Affairs Journal 16, no. 1 (January 1, 1996): 27–38. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ546955.
 Orphan, Cecilia. “Why Regional Comprehensive Universities Are Vital Parts of U.S. Higher Education | Scholars Strategy Network.” Accessed December 30, 2018. https://scholars.org/brief/why-regional-comprehensive-universities-are-vital-parts-us-higher-education; Cruz, Laura, Gillian D. Ellern, George Ford, Hollye Moss, and Barbara Jo White. “Navigating the Boundaries of the Scholarship of Engagement at a Regional Comprehensive University.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 17, no. 1 (January 1, 2013): 3–26. http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/viewFile/980/651; Hickey, Anthony Andrew, and Kendall W. King. “A Model for Integrating Research Administration and Graduate School Operations at a Regional Comprehensive University.” Research Management Review 2, no. 1 (January 1, 1988): 31–44. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ390845; McMahan, Shari. “Creating a Model for High Impact Practices at a Large, Regional, Comprehensive University: A Case Study.” Contemporary Issues in Education Research 8, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 111–16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1058165 .
Somers, Patricia. “The Freshman Year: How Financial Aid Influences Enrollment and Persistence at a Regional Comprehensive University.” College Student Affairs Journal 16, no. 1 (January 1, 1996): 27–38. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ546955.
 Selingo, Jeffrey. “Regional Public Colleges—the ‘Middle Children’ of Higher Ed—Struggle to Survive.” Washington Post, February 9, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/02/09/regional-public-colleges-the-middle-children-of-higher-ed-struggle-to-survive/.
 Sorber, N. M. (2018). Land-Grant Colleges and Popular Revolt: The Origins of the Morrill Act and the Reform of Higher Education. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. See also, Geiger, R. L., & Sorber, N. M. (Eds.). (2013). The Land-Grant Colleges and the Reshaping of American Higher Education (1 edition). New Brunswick (U.S.A.) ; London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers; Ferguson, L. (2015, November 19). Creating the Future Together. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://www.plymouth.edu/magazine/uncategorized/creating-the-future-together/;
 Chandler, A. D. (2019). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Project 2000: Significant Works in Twentieth-Century Economic History). http://www.eh.net/?s=the+visible+hand; Ferguson, E. S. (1815). Oliver Evans: Inventive Genius of the American Industrial Revolution. Hagley Museum & Library.; Ferguson, E. S., & Staff, H. M. and L. (1980). Oliver Evans: Inventive Genius of the American Industrial Revolution. Greenville, Del: Hagley Museum & Library. https://amzn.to/2DnAfF1 ; Heath, N. (2011, September 22). American hero or British traitor? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-15002318; Library of Congress. (n.d.). Teacher’s Guide: The Industrial Revolution in the United States (webpage). //www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/industrial-revolution/; Taylor, G. R. (1976). The Transportation Revolution 1815–1860. M. E. Sharpe.; ushistory.org. (n.d.). The First American Factories. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from http://www.ushistory.org/us/25d.asp
 McCarthy, D. (2018). The Future of New Hampshire. New Hampshire Magazine. http://www.nhmagazine.com/January-2018/The-Future-of-New-Hampshire/; New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. (2014). NH Center for Public Policy—Public Colleges, Public Dollars: Higher Education in NH. New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/public-colleges-public-dollars-higher-education-in-nh; StayWorkPlay. (2017). Survey. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from http://stayworkplay.org/survey/; Wood, J. (2018, November 19). New Hampshire facing demographic crunch as population ages. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/19/new-hampshire-facing-demographic-crunch-as-population-ages; Patsarika, M. (2014). New capitalism, educational modernisation and the new role of the professional student. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(4), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.871224
 Birx, D. (2016, August). Welcome and the Three E’s: Empowerment, Encouragement, and Excitement. University Day Speech. https://campus.plymouth.edu/president/welcome-and-the-three-es-empowerment-encouragement-and-excitement/
 Patel, Vimal. “Want to Revamp Your Curriculum? Here’s How to Avoid a Quagmire.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4, 2018. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Revamp-Your/242725.
 Google: “integrated clusters” cross-disciplinary education yields 2,100 results and the top organic results are “Plymouth State University”. See mention of PSU in Patel, Vimal. “Want to Revamp Your Curriculum? Here’s How to Avoid a Quagmire.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 4, 2018. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Want-to-Revamp-Your/242725
 EAB. (2016). Inside Plymouth State’s experiment with academic “clusters.” Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://www.eab.com/daily-briefing/2016/06/24/inside-plymouth-states-experiment-with-academic-clusters; Seltzer, R. (n.d.). Plymouth State announces layoffs, restructuring around interdisciplinary clusters. Retrieved October 19, 2018, from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/06/21/plymouth-state-announces-layoffs-restructuring-around-interdisciplinary-clusters
 In 2018, TIDE submitted a University Reinvention Initiative (URI) Program Report, endorsed unanimously by then CoBA faculty, Many PSU URI proposals mentioned ‘entrepreneurship’ in their credo, including Eating disorders, Human Relations, Art History, Bio-chemistry, Music, Public Relations (e.g. The Business of Eating Disorder (Mardie Burckes-Miller), The Business of Art (Sarah Parrish), Bio-chemistry and Innovation (Jeremiah Duncan), Arts and Innovation, Music Entrepreneurship (Rik Pfenniger)). TIDE received a “4” (Further Evaluation is Indicated) in the URI review. A score of “4” means ‘proceed or continue developing your detailed strategy and timeline and keep us informed (academic affairs and provost council) of your progress’.
 Birx, Donald. “Town Hall Progress Report,” July 14, 2016; Birx, Donald. Plymouth State University Interim Report, § New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) Commission on Institutions of Higher Education on (2018). https://campus.plymouth.edu/neasc/.Fall
 Plymouth State University. (2016). Integrated Clusters Working Definitions—Plymouth State University. https://www.plymouth.edu/clusters/files/2016/01/Definitions-Final.pdf
 Edudemic Staff. “STEM vs. STEAM: Why The ‘A’ Makes a Difference | Edudemic,” January 11, 2015. http://www.edudemic.com/stem-vs-steam-why-the-a-makes-all-the-difference/; Gardiner, Bonnie. “Picking up STEAM: How the Arts Can Drive STEM Leadership.” CIO (13284045), October 6, 2015, 1–1. https://www.cio.com.au/article/585493/picking-up-steam-how-arts-can-drive-stem-leadership/; Guyotte, Kelly W., Nicki W. Sochacka, Tracie E. Costantino, Joachim Walther, and Nadia N. Kellam. “Steam as Social Practice: Cultivating Creativity in Transdisciplinary Spaces.” Art Education 67, no. 6 (November 1, 2014): 12–19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00043125.2014.11519293; Piperopoulos, Panagiotis, and Dimo Dimov. “Burst Bubbles or Build Steam? Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Small Business Management 53, no. 4 (October 1, 2015): 970–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12116; Sochacka, Nicola W., Kelly. W. Guyotte, and Joachim Walther. “Learning Together: A Collaborative Autoethnographic Exploration of STEAM (STEM + the Arts) Education.” Journal of Engineering Education 105, no. 1 (January 2016): 15–42. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jee.20112; Watson, Andrew D., and Gregory H. Watson. “Transitioning STEM to STEAM: Reformation of Engineering Education.” Journal for Quality & Participation 36, no. 3 (October 2013): 1–4. https://www.academia.edu/8766909/Transitioning_STEM_to_STEAM_Reformation_of_Engineering_Education.
 Collins, A. (n.d.). How playing an instrument benefits your brain—Anita Collins. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-playing-an-instrument-benefits-your-brain-anita-collins; Clapp, E. P., & Jimenez, R. L. (2016). Implementing STEAM in maker-centered learning. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000066; Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the Nexus of STEAM Practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.
 In the cross-university context, any student can be enterprising and launch ventures. It of course includes business ventures but also social, environmental, and scientific ventures. But students can also launch (ad)ventures, such as an Outdoor Education student who organizes a twenty-person climb up Mt Kilimanjaro. That trip may not be an incorporated business but still will required business skills.
 Cousineau, M. (2016, June 19). Layoffs, “cluster” classes as PSU attempts to revamp higher ed | New Hampshire. UnionLeader.Com. http://www.unionleader.com/Layoffs-cluster-classes-as-PSU-attempts-to-revamp-higher-ed-06202016
 Birx, Donald. “The Four Tools of Clusters—Office of President.” Accessed October 15, 2018. https://campus.plymouth.edu/president/the-four-tools-of-clusters/.
 Clark, B. (2001). The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 9–24.; Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. Elsevier.; Clark, B. R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02679392; Clark, B. R. (2004). Delineating the Character of the Entrepreneurial University. Higher Education Policy, 17(4), 355–370. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300062; Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTG.2004.004551; Etzkowitz, H. (2014). The Entrepreneurial University Wave: From Ivory Tower to Global Economic Engine. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2014.0211; Etzkowitz, H. (2016). T Etzkowitz, H. (2016). The Entrepreneurial University: Vision and Metrics. Industry and Higher Education, 30(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2016.0303
 Etzkowitz, H. (2014). The Entrepreneurial University Wave: From Ivory Tower to Global Economic Engine. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2014.0211
 Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697–1705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp01.2008.08.008
 The first comprehensive textbook was our predecessor Kuratko, Donald F., and Richard M. Hodgetts. Entrepreneurship: A Contemporary Approach. Dryden Press Series in Management. Chicago: Dryden Press, 1989. See also: Greenwood, K., & And Others. (1984). Resources for Entrepreneurship Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED269577; Miller, M. D., Wimberley, D., Oklahoma State University, Occupational and Adult Education, United States, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, . . . Minority Business Development Agency (Eds.). (1984). Promoting entrepreneurship education in vocational education a final report. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University, College of Education, Occupational and Adult Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED269576; National Center for Research in Vocational Education (U.S.), United States, & Office of Vocational and Adult Education (Eds.). (1984). National Entrepreneurship Education Forum. In National Entrepreneurship Education Forum proceedings of a conference, September 5–6, 1984. Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED262153; Ross, N., National Center for Research in Vocational Education (U.S.), United States, & Office of Vocational and Adult Education (Eds.). (1984). A National entrepreneurship education agenda for action. Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Ohio State University. http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:42680; Worthington, R. M. (1984). Critical Issues Surrounding Entrepreneurship Education—Present, Past, Future—A Federal Perspective. Office of Vocational and Adult Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED251612; McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883–9026(87)90013–9
 Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-Year Literature Review. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242697153004; Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (1996). Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Aldershot, Hants, England ; Burlington, Vt: Ashgate Pub Ltd.; Hills, G. E. (1988). Variations in University entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of an evolving field. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883–9026(88)90021–3; Kent, C. A. (1990). Entrepreneurship education : current developments, future directions. New York: Quorum Books.; Plaschka, G. R., & Welsch, H. P. (1990). Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: curricular designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 55–71. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104225879001400308; Solomon, G. T., & Lloyd W. Fernald, J. (1991). Trends in Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101500303
 Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883–9026(97)00009–8
 Baptista, R., & Naia, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship Education: A Selective Examination of the Literature. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 11(5), 337–426. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000047; Baptista, R., & Naia, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship Education: A Selective Examination of the Literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(5), 337–426. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000047; Gartner, W. B., & Vesper, K. H. (1994). Experiments in entrepreneurship education: successes and failures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 179–187. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256620228_Experiments_in_entrepreneurship_education_Successes_and_failures; Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883–9026(02)00098–8; Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883–9026(97)00009–8; Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship Education and Training: The Issue of Effectiveness. Routledge; Naia, A., Baptista, R., Januário, C., & Trigo, V. (2015). Entrepreneurship Education Literature in the 2000s. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(1), 111–135; Solomon, G. (2014). The National Survey of Entrepreneurship Education. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.nationalsurvey.org/files/2014KauffmanReport_Clean.pdf; Finkle, T. A. (2010). Entrepreneurship education trends. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 1, 35. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08034.pdf
 Streeter, D. H., Kher, R., & Jaquette Jr., J. P. (2011). University-wide trends in entrepreneurship education and the rankings: a dilemma. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 14, 75–92. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/jeevol142011.pdf#page=83
 Bae, Tae Jun, Shanshan Qian, Chao Miao, and James O. Fiet. “The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38, no. 2 (March 1, 2014): 217–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12095; Raposo, Mário, and Arminda do Paço. “Entrepreneurship Education: Relationship between Education and Entrepreneurial Activity.” Psicothema 23, no. 3 (August 2011): 453–57; Aronsson, M. (2004). Education Matters—But Does Entrepreneurship Education? An interview with David Birch. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 289–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2004.14242224. Jiménez, Alfredo, Carmen Palmero-Cámara, María Josefa González-Santos, Jerónimo González-Bernal, and Juan Alfredo Jiménez-Eguizábal. “The Impact of Educational Levels on Formal and Informal Entrepreneurship.” BRQ Business Research Quarterly 18, no. 3 (July 1, 2015): 204–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002; Tiwari, Preeti, Anil K. Bhat, and Jyoti Tikoria. “Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Validation Study.” In Entrepreneurship Education, 171–88. Springer, Singapore, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–981–10–3319–3_9; Coduras MartÍnez, Alicia, Jonathan Levie, Donna J. Kelley, RÖgnvaldur J. SÆmundsson, and Thomas SchØtt. “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training.” Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2010. https://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/gem-2010-special-report-education-training.pdf; Maresch, Daniela, Rainer Harms, Norbert Kailer, and Birgit Wimmer-Wurm. “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on the Entrepreneurial Intention of Students in Science and Engineering versus Business Studies University Programs.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 104 (March 1, 2016): 172–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006; Shinnar, R., Pruett, M., & Toney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes Across Campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.3.151–159
 Jianying Cai, & Deyi Kong. (2017). Study on the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Colleges and Universities on Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention. Revista de La Facultad de Ingenieria, 32(14), 899–903. http://revistadelafacultaddeingenieria.com/index.php/ingenieria/article/viewFile/2795/2754; Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to Act Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0293; Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., & Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006; Sánchez, J. C. (2011). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365–010–0156-x; Kiyani, S. A. (2017). Role of Entrepreneurship Education on Student Attitudes. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(2), 270–293. http://www.aupc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/4-AJSS-10–2–17.pdf; Jones, P., Pickernell, D., Fisher, R., & Netana, C. (2017). A tale of two universities: graduates perceived value of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 59(⅞), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06–2017–0079; Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self–Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–6520.2007.00179.x; Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016). The promise of entrepreneurship education: Reconceptualizing the individual–opportunity nexus as a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616638422. See also: Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas‐Clerc, N. (2006a). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610715022; Kamovich, U., & Foss, L. (2017). In Search of Alignment: A Review of Impact Studies in Entrepreneurship Education [Research article]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1450102; Lee, S. M., Chang, D., & Lim, S. (2005). Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: A Comparative Study of the U.S. and Korea. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365–005–6674–2; Lorz, M., Mueller, S., & Volery, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the methods in impact studies. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(02), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495813500064; Matlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810871745; Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026; Oosterbeek, H., Praag, M. van, & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454. https://papers.ssrn.com/s013/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520492
 Lackéus, Martin, Mats Lundqvist, and Karen Williams Middleton. “Bridging the Traditional-Progressive Education Rift through Entrepreneurship.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 22, no. 6 (September 5, 2016): 777–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03–2016–0072; Lackéus, Martin, and Karen Williams Middleton. “Venture Creation Programs: Bridging Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer.” Education + Training 57, no. 1 (February 9, 2015): 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02–2013–0013; Lackéus, Martin. “Entrepreneurship in Education: What, Why, When, How.” OECD, 2015. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf.
 Jiménez, A., Palmero-Cámara, C., González-Santos, M. J., González-Bernal, J., & Jiménez-Eguizábal, J. A. (2015). The impact of educational levels on formal and informal entrepreneurship. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002; Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf; Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., & Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006; Raposo, M., & do Paço, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: relationship between education and entrepreneurial activity. Psicothema, 23(3), 453–457. http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3909.pdf; Raposo, M., & Paço, A. do. (2011). Entrepreneurship and education—links between education and entrepreneurial activity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365–010–0152–1; Tiwari, P., Bhat, A. K., & Tikoria, J. (2017). Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Validation Study. In Entrepreneurship Education (pp. 171–188). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–981–10–3319–3_9;
 Davey, T., Hannon, P., & Penaluna, A. (2016). Entrepreneurship education and the role of universities in entrepreneurship: Introduction to the special issue. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216656699; Huq, A., & Gilbert, D. (2017). All the world’s a stage: transforming entrepreneurship education through design thinking. Education + Training, 59(2), 155–170. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/ET-12–2015–0111; Maritz, A. (2017). Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education programmes: Part 2. Education + Training, 59(5), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02–2017–0018; Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026; Omer Attali, M., & Yemini, M. (2017). Initiating consensus: stakeholders define entrepreneurship in education. Educational Review, 69(2), 140–157. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131911.2016.1153457?journalCode=cedr20; Panos Castro, J. (2017). Entrepreneurship education and active methodologies for its promotion. Revista Electronica Interuniversitaria De Formacion Del Profesorado, 20(3), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.20.3.272221; Papadopoulos, P. M., Burger, R., & Faria, A. (2016). Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Education (Vol. 2). Emerald Group Publishing.; Sanchez Garcia, J. C., Ward, A., Hernandez, B., & Lizette Florez, J. (2017). Entrepreneurship Education: State of the Art. Propositos Y Representaciones, 5(2), 401–473. http://revistas.usil.edu.pe/index.php/pyr/article/view/190/325; Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016). The promise of entrepreneurship education: Reconceptualizing the individual–opportunity nexus as a conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616638422; Welsh, D. H. B., Tullar, W. L., & Nemati, H. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: Process, method, or both? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(3), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.01.005;
 Sen, A. (2001). Development as Freedom. OUP Oxford; Sen, A. (2004a). Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088–4963.2004.00017.x; Sen, A. (2004b). Rationality and freedom. Harvard University Press; Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166; Sen, A. (2011). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press; Sen, A. K. (1999). Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1999.0055
 Fetters, M. L., Greene, P. G., Rice, M. P., & Butler, J. S. (Eds.). (2010). The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.; Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City: Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Startup+Communities%3A+Building+an+Entrepreneurial+Ecosystem+in+Your+City-p-9781118483312; Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187–017–9864–8; Stam, E. (2014). The Dutch Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2473475). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2473475; Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484; Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.821/full; Alvedalen, J., & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694; Aulet, B. (2008). How to build a successful innovation ecosystem: educate, network, and celebrate. Xconomy. Com, 14. https://www.xconomy.com/national/2008/10/14/how-to-build-a-successful-innovation-ecosystem-educate-network-and-celebrate/; Autio, E., & Levie, J. (2017). Management of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In The Wiley Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 423–449). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118970812.ch19; Belitski, M., & Heron, K. (2017). Expanding entrepreneurship education ecosystems. Journal of Management Development, 36(2), 163–177. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JMD-06–2016–0121; Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., Harrison, R. T., Hechavarria, D., Justo, R., & McAdam, M. (2018). A Gendered Look at Entrepreneurship Ecosystems. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2018(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.16912symposium; Frederick, H. H. (2015). The role of universities as entrepreneurship ecosystems in the era of climate change: A new theory of entrepreneurial ecology. Jurnal Intelek, 6(2). http://jurnalintelek.uitm.edu.my/index.php/main/article/download/35/19; Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50. http://bit.ly/20URYpD ; Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., Robb, A., & Welter, F. (2017). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth of Women’s Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. http://bit.ly/2PGuOZb; Rice, M. P., Fetters, M. L., & Greene, P. G. (2010). University-based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Key success factors and recommendations. In M. L. Fetters, P. G. Greene, M. P. Rice, & J. S. Butler (Eds.), The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems : global practices (pp. 177–196). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.; Stam, E., & Bosma, N. (2014). Growing entrepreneurial economies: Entrepreneurship and regional development. In T. Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Entrepreneurship. Routledge. http://bit.ly/2S4RFKJ
 Pugh, R., Lamine, W., Jack, S., & Hamilton, E. (2018). The entrepreneurial university and the region: what role for entrepreneurship departments? European Planning Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1447551
 Brush, C., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., & Welter, F. (2018). A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187–018–9992–9; Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., Harrison, R. T., Hechavarria, D., Justo, R., & McAdam, M. (2018). A Gendered Look at Entrepreneurship Ecosystems. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2018(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.16912symposium’ Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., Robb, A., & Welter, F. (2017). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth of Women’s Entrepreneurship: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub. http://bit.ly/2PGuOZb
 Adapted from Withell, A. (2016). Conceptualising, evaluating and enhancing a design thinking curriculum using a critical realist perspective (Thesis). Auckland University of Technology, 108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264900499_Making_Sense_of_What_You_See_Patterning_as_a_Transdisciplinary_Habit_of_Mind; see also Lynda.com Imboden, E. (n.d.). The role of design in entrepreneurship. https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skills-tutorials/role-design-entrepreneurship/495768/567467–4.html
 Galor, O., and S. Michalopoulos. “Evolution and the Growth Process: Natural Selection of Entrepreneurial Traits.” Journal of Economic Theory 147, no. 2 (2012): 759–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2011.04.005; Galor, Oded, and Stelios Michalopoulos. “The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Spirit and the Process of Development,” 2006. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=996684.; Mokyr, Joel. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford University Press, 1992; Wennekers, S., and R. Thurik. “Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.” Small Business Economics 13, no. 1 (1999): 27–56. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008063200484.
 His famous Theory of Economic Development (1911, transl. 1934), in German was Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.In German, ‘Entwicklung’ also means evolution. Indeed, the root verb entwickeln literally means to unwrapping or unfolding, as in a flower. Translators of the day preferred ‘development’ because it had a French equivalent in ‘développement’. Schumpeter, Joseph A., and John E. Elliott. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New edition edition. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 1982 (1911).
 Margolis, H. (1993). Paradigms and Barriers: How Habits of Mind Govern Scientific Beliefs. University of Chicago Press. http://bit.ly/2TlRa0m; Costa, A. (n.d.). The Art Costa Centre For Thinking. Retrieved November 19, 2018, from https://artcostacentre.com/html/habits.htm; Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000a). Activating & Engaging Habits of Mind. A Developmental Series, Book 2. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED444935; Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000b). Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind. A Developmental Series, Book 1. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1703 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311–1714 (ASCD members, $16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED439101; Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and Leading with Habits of Mind: 16 Essential Characteristics for Success. ASCD. http://bit.ly/2TiaD20; Baños Monroy, V. I., Ramírez Solís, E. R., & Gutiérrez Patrón, L. M. (2015). Lean Scientific Method Canvas: A New Model to Design Research Documents from an Entrepreneurial Mindset. In Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Entrepreneurship. Proceedings; Arden (Vol. 21, pp. 1–3). Arden, United States: Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc. https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3–3763277691.html; Daniel, A. D. (2016). Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset by using a design thinking approach in entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216653195; Desai, H. P. (2018). Integrating ownership and entrepreneurial mindset in design education. In Cumulus Conference Proceedings Wuxi 2018 Diffused Transition & Design Opportunities. Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media. http://bit.ly/2FtQxir; McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (Eds.). (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset strategies for continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. http://bit.ly/2PxZ60t; Moreau, C. P., & Engeset, M. G. (2015). The Downstream Consequences of Problem-Solving Mindsets: How Playing with LEGO Influences Creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0499; Pijl, P. V. D., Lokitz, J., Solomon, L. K., Pluijm, E. van der, & Lieshout, M. van. (2016). Design a Better Business: New Tools, Skills, and Mindset for Strategy and Innovation (1 edition). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.; Ramakrishna, S. (2015). Strategies for the Universities to be Locally Engaged while Globally Visible. Asian Journal of Innovation & Policy, 4(3), 271–287. http://bit.ly/2PDQa9S
 Bridge, Simon, Ken O’Neill, and Stan Cromie, eds. Understanding Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Business, 1998, p. 36. http://bit.ly/2Q481Gd
 Breslin, D., & Jones, C. (2014). Developing an evolutionary/ecological approach in enterprise education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.010; David, R., & Harry, M. (2010). Enterprise education and university entrepreneurship. Industry & Higher Education, 24(6), 409–411. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.5367/ihe.2010.0019?journalCode=ihea; Draycott, M., & Rae, D. (2011). Enterprise education in schools and the role of competency frameworks. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111114905; Gibb, A. A. (1993). Enterprise Culture and Education: Understanding Enterprise Education and Its Links with Small Business,Entrepreneurship and Wider Educational Goals. International Small Business Journal, 11(3), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/026624269301100301; Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-Year Literature Review. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242697153004; Hytti, U., & O’Gorman, C. (2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Education + Training, 46(1), 11–23.; Iredale, N., & Jones, B. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education + Training, 52(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011017654; Jones, C., & Penaluna, A. (2013). Moving beyond the business plan in enterprise education. Education + Training, 55(8/9), 804–814. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ET-06-2013-0077/full/html; Jones, C., Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A., & Matlay, H. (2014). Claiming the future of enterprise education. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06–2014–0065; Lewis, K., & Massey, C. (2003). Delivering enterprise education in New Zealand. Education + Training, 45(4), 197–206. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00400910310478120; Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540–6520.2003.00035.x; Rae, D. (2010). Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenges of the new era. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 591–606. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/14626001011088741; Sims, P. A., Huang, X., & Niles, J. (2017). Curriculum Design for Transformative Enterprise Education within the Context of Strategic Sustainable Development. http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:1137848/FULLTEXT01.pdf; Welsh Enterprise Institute. (n.d.). Enterprise Education Initiatives. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from https://web.archive.org/web/20010107081300/http://www.itc.glam.ac.uk:80/wei/Education.htm;;
 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2018). Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/about-us/enterprise-and-entrpreneurship-education-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=20e2f581; see also Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Luxembourg: European Union. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101581/lfna27939enn.pdf , p.9
 Plymouth State University, College of Business Administration, (2017), Enterprising Mind-set—Habit of Mind—Results of University days workshop, August 2017. Plymouth State University. (n.d.). Innovation & Entrepreneurship – Our Learning Model. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://www.plymouth.edu/academics/our-learning-model/our-learning-model/innovation-entrepreneurship/
 Peter, K., & Mantz, Y. (2003). Assessment, Learning And Employability. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
 The Appendix is particularly helpful. LeBlanc, C., Amsden, B., Cantor, P., Oliver, H., & Rino, J. (2017). Report of the General Education Outcomes Task Force. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://campus.plymouth.edu/clusters/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/08/Draft-GEOTF-Report.pdf. See also LeBlanc, C. (2017). First Year Seminar Readings. Open Educational Resources. https://psufys.pressbooks.com/chapter/habits-of-mind/
 LeBlanc, C., Amsden, B., Cantor, P., Oliver, H., & Rino, J. (2017). Report of the General Education Outcomes Task Force. Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://campus.plymouth.edu/clusters/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/08/Draft-GEOTF-Report.pdf
 Institute for Habits of Mind. (n.d.). What are Habits of Mind? Retrieved February 2, 2019, from http://www.habitsofmindinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/HOM.Chart_.Horizontal.pdf
 Harvard Graduate School of Education. (n.d.). The Studio Thinking Project | Project Zero. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/the-studio-thinking-project; Henriksen, D., Cain, W., & Mishra, P. (2014). Making Sense of What You See: Patterning as a Transdisciplinary Habit of Mind. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(5), 2–6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264900499_Making_Sense_of_What_You_See_Patterning_as_a_Transdisciplinary_Habit_of_Mind; Henriksen, D., Mehta, R., & Mishra, P. (2014). Learning to See: Perceiving as a Trans-disciplinary Habit of Mind. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 58(4), 9–12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264900499_Making_Sense_of_What_You_See_Patterning_as_a_Transdisciplinary_Habit_of_Mind; Katz, S., Sutherland, S., & Earl, L. (2005). Toward an Evaluation Habit of Mind: Mapping the Journey. Teachers College Record, 107(10), 2326–2350. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ723243; Link Engineering Educator Exchange. (n.d.). Engineering Habits of Mind. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from https://www.linkengineering.org/Explore/what-is-engineering/5808.aspx; Mindset Kit. (n.d.). Resources for growth and learning mindsets. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from https://www.mindsetkit.org/; Teaching Channel. (2015, March 3). 8 Habits of Thinking Learned from Artists. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/blog/2015/03/03/8-habits-of-thinking; The Caedmon School. (2017, November 14). Habits of Mind and Growth Mindsets. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from https://caedmonschool.org/2017/11/14/habits-of-mind-and-growth-mindsets/
 Brown, T. (2008, June 1). Design thinking. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking; Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperBusiness; Chen, S., & Venkatesh, A. (2013). An investigation of how design-oriented organisations implement design thinking. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1680–700; Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press; Martin, R. L., Christensen, K., & Martin, R. L. (Eds.). (2013). The design of business. In Rotman on design: The best on design thinking from Rotman magazine (pp. 15–19). University of Toronto Press.
 Brown, T. J., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). The impact of design and innovation on the future of education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 147–151. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-14746-001; Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637; Buchanan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056; Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design Thinking and Education. In J. H. L. Koh, C. S. Chai, B. Wong, & H.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Design Thinking for Education: Conceptions and Applications in Teaching and Learning (pp. 1–15). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://web.archive.org/web/20200107113337/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637; Marber, P., & Araya, D. (2017). The Evolution of Liberal Arts in the Global Age. Taylor & Francis. http://bit.ly/2RbzDGG ; Miller. (2017). Is “design thinking” the new liberal arts? In P. Marber & P. N. Miller (Eds.), The Evolution of Liberal Arts in the Global Age. Routledge.; Shrand, T. (2016). Design Thinking as a Strategy for Consensus in General Education Reform. In Association of American Colleges & Universities. https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2016/summer/Schrand; Virtual, M. (2014). Design Thinking and the Liberal Arts: a framework for re-imagining a liberal arts education. https://www.academia.edu/25787095/Design_Thinking_and_the_Liberal_Arts_a_framework_for_re-imagining_a_liberal_arts_education; Walsh-Covarrubias, J. B. (2010). Creating the Entrepreneurial University to Support Liberal Education (review). The Journal of General Education, 59(2), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2010.0008; West, G. P., III, Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gustafson, J. (Eds.). (2009). Entrepreneurship as a Liberal Art. In Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/handbook-of-university-wide-entrepreneurship-education; Wladawsky-Berger, I. (2016, November 4). Is Design Thinking the New Liberal Arts? Retrieved November 24, 2018, from https://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2016/11/04/is-design-thinking-the-new-liberal-arts/;
 Fuller, R. B. (1963). A comprehensive anticipatory design science. In No more secondhand god: And other writings (pp. 75–104). Southern Illinois University Press; Fuller, R. B. (n.d.). Eight strategies for comprehensive anticipatory design science. The Buckminster Fuller Institute. https://www.bfi.org/design-science/primer/eight-strategies-comprehensive-anticipatory-design-science; Fuller, R. B. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship earth. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. http://designsciencelab.com/resources/OperatingManual_BF.pdf; Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press. https://monoskop.org/images/9/9c/Simon_Herbert_A_The_Sciences_of_the_Artificial_3rd_ed.pdf.
 Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3, 221–7. See also Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F1-84628-301-9_1; Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55; Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. Design ResearchNow, 41–54; Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–69; Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8, 5–21. https://web.archive.org/web/20200107113337/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511637 .
 Brown, T. (2008, June 1). Design thinking. https://hbr.org/2008/06/design-thinking; Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperBusiness; Chen, S., & Venkatesh, A. (2013). An investigation of how design-oriented organisations implement design thinking. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1680–700; Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press; Martin, R. L., Christensen, K., & Martin, R. L. (Eds.). (2013). The design of business. In Rotman on design: The best on design thinking from Rotman magazine (pp. 15–19). University of Toronto Press.
 For inspiring this definition, we credit Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M., & Middleton, K. W. (2016). Bridging the traditional-progressive education rift through entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 777–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03–2016–0072. See also Lackéus, M. (2013). Developing Entrepreneurial Competencies—An Action-Based Approach and Classification in Education. Chalmers University of Technology. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/186625; Lackéus, M. (2014). An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 374–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.06.005; Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf; Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M., & Middleton, K. W. (2011). Obstacles to Establishing Venture Creation Based Entrepreneurship Education Programs. Nordic Academy of Management Meeting (NFF) Conference, Stockholm. https://research.chalmers.se/publication/142642; Lackéus, M., & Middleton, K. W. (2015). Venture creation programs: bridging entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Education + Training, 57(1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02–2013–0013
 Entrepreneurial Will means eagerly committing to expend great energy and take calculated risks to create value. Enterprising Mind-Set means marked by imagination, initiative and readiness to undertake new endeavors. Transformative Innovations create opportunity spaces for entrepreneurs and give rise to entirely new industries. Design Entrepreneurship combines creativity and imagination to achieve break-through solutions to ill-defined yet complex problems.
 The origins of the phrase is in dispute. Senator John F. Kennedy’s speechwriter Theodore Sorensen writes that the aphorism stems from JFK's tenure in the Senate, when Sorensen noticed that ‘the regional chamber of commerce, the New England Council, had a thoughtful slogan: ‘A rising tide lifts all the boats.’ Sorensen, Ted. Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History. Reprint edition. Harper Perennial, 2009, p. 227; “Etymology - Origin of ‘a Rising Tide Lifts All Boats.’” English Language & Usage Stack Exchange. Accessed February 19, 2019. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/230520/origin-of-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats; Quora. “How to Lift Boats by Raising Your Tide.” Nina Amir (blog), December 10, 2018. https://ninaamir.com/lift-boats-raising-your-tide/; Wikipedia. “A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats.” In Wikipedia, January 30, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_rising_tide_lifts_all_boats&oldid=880887294.
 Brownstein, Deborah. “2017 ACBSP Reaffirmation Report,” 2017. https://campus.plymouth.edu/business/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2017/07/07.15.2017-PSU-ACBSP-Reaffirmation-Report.pdf.
 BBC World Service. “50 Things That Made the Modern Economy.” BBC. Accessed February 19, 2019. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b1g3c/episodes/downloads.
 Bright, David S., Ronald E. Fry, and David L. Cooperrider. “Transformative Innovations for the Mutual Benefit of Business Society, and Environment.” BAWB Interactive Working Paper Series 1, no. 1 (2006): 17–31 http://bit.ly/2EijawA; Leicester, Graham. Transformative Innovation: A Guide to Practice and Policy. Axminster, England: Triarchy Press Ltd, 2016. http://www.gbv.de/dms/zbw/863658369.pdf; International Futures Forum. “Transformative Innovation,” 2018. http://www.internationalfuturesforum.com/transformative-innovation.
Rosenzweig, Gerard, and Stav Tellis. How Transformative Innovations Shaped the Rise of Nations: From Ancient Rome to Modern America. London, UK ; New York, NY: Anthem Press, 2018. https://www.anthempress.com/how-transformative-innovations-shaped-the-rise-of-nations-hb.
Schot, J., and E. Steinmueller. Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.0. SPRU Draft, 2017. https://www.johanschot.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Framing-Innovation-Policy-for-Transformative-Change-Innovation-Policy-3.0-2016.pdf.
Wahl, Daniel Christian. “Why Choose Transformative over Sustaining Innovation?” Medium (blog), April 5, 2017. https://medium.com/@designforsustainability/why-choose-transformative-over-sustaining-innovation-b59a2dc5bac1.
 Scrase, I., Stirling, A., Geels, F. W., Smith, A., & Van Zwanenberg, P. (2009). Transformative Innovation: a report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=spru-for-defra—-transformative-innovation.pdf&site=264/; Stankiewicz, R. (1992). Technology as an Autonomous Socio-Cognitive System. In Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation (pp. 19–44). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–642–86467–4_2
 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2016, from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sdgoverview/post-2015-development-agenda.html
 Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2017). Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.0. SPRU Draft. http://www.johanschot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SchotSteinmueller_FramingsWorkingPaperVersionUpdated2018.10.16-New-copy.pdf; Schot, J. (2016). Confronting the Second Deep Transition through the Historical Imagination. Technology and Culture, 57(2), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2016.0044; Schot, J., & Kanger, L. (2016). Deep Transitions: Emergence, Acceleration, Stabilization and Directionality (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2834854). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2834854; Anderson, Philip, and Michael L. Tushman. 1990. “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 604–633; http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393511; Schumpeter, Joseph.A. 1942. Capitalism and Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper Brothers; Tushman, M., & Anderson, P. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly.Sen, A. (2014). Totally radical: From transformative research to transformative innovation. Science & Public Policy (SPP), 41(3), 344–358. https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/41/3/344/1633533
 Daniel, A. D. (2016). Fostering an entrepreneurial mind-set by using a design thinking approach in entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216653195; Fry, A., Alexander, R., & Ladhib, S. (2017). Design-entrepreneurship in the post-recession economy: Parsons ELab, a Design School Incubator. Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Diseño y Comunicación No 64, 64. http://bit.ly/2Pv6fON ; Dong, A., Lin, N., Tschang, T., & Lovallo, D. (2018). Demystifying the Genius of Entrepreneurship: How Design Cognition Can Help Create the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0040; Gunes, S. (2012). Design Entrepreneurship in Product Design Education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr0.2012.08.119; Huber, F., Peisl, T., Gedeon, S., & Brodie, J. (2016). Design thinking-based entrepreneurship education: How to incorporate design thinking principles into an entrepreneurship course. In ResearchGate. Leeds University http://bit.ly/2B8Cnis ; Huq, A., & Gilbert, D. (2017). All the world’s a stage: transforming entrepreneurship education through design thinking. Education + Training, 59(2), 155–170. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/83608131.pdf; Imboden, E. (n.d.). The role of design in entrepreneurship. https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skills-tutorials/role-design-entrepreneurship/495768/567467–4.html; Lahn, L. C., & Erikson, T. (2016). Entrepreneurship education by design. Education + Training, 58(⅞), 684–699. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/ET-03–2016–0051; Nielsen, S. L., & Stovang, P. (2015). DesUni: university entrepreneurship education through design thinking. Education + Training, 57(8/9), 977–991. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/ET-09–2014–0121; Val, E., Gonzalez, I., Iriarte, I., Beitia, A., Lasa, G., & Elkoro, M. (2017). A Design Thinking approach to introduce entrepreneurship education in European school curricula. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S754–S766. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353022; Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O., Zerwas, D., & Mokanis, I. (2013). Potentials of Entrepreneurial Design Thinking® for Entrepreneurship Education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2080–2092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspr0.2013.12.237; Von Kortzfleisch, H., Mokanis, I., & Zerwas, D. (2012). Introducing Entrepreneurial Design Thinking (Arbeitsberichte aus dem Fachbereich Informatik). University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany. https://userpages.uni-koblenz.de/~fb4reports/2012/2012_05_Arbeitsberichte.pdf; Zupan, B., & Nabergoj, A. S. (2012). Developing Design Thinking Skills in Entrepreneurship Education. Leading Through Design, 525. http://www.academia.edu/download/30766326/DMI2012_V21.pdf#page=555; Zupan, B., & Nabergoj, A. S. (2016). Incorporating Design Thinking in Entrepreneurship Education. Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 876–883 http://bit.ly/2zVaAAw ; Vignati, A., & Carella, G. (2018). Design Thinking as new leverage for Entrepreneurship Education. In Cumulus Conference Proceedings Wuxi 2018 Diffused Transition & Design Opportunities. Cumulus International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media. http://www.academia.edu/34066459/Cuaderno_64-_Design-entrepreneurship_in_the_post-recession_economy_Parsons_ELab_a_Design_School_Incubator
 Comstock, Beth, Vice Chair of General Electric, cite in Imboden, E. (n.d.). The role of design in entrepreneurship. https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skills-tutorials/role-design-entrepreneurship/495768/567467–4.html
 Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011). Making sense of design thinking. In T.-M. Karalainen, M. Koria, & M. Salimäki (Eds.), IDBM papers (Vol. 1, pp. 51–62). Helsinki: IDBM Program, Aalto University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301293326_IDBM_Papers_V011.
 Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3, 221–7. See also Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/1–84628–301–9_1.pdf; Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55; Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. Design Research Now, 41–54.
Cross, Nigel. Design Thinking as a Form of Intelligence, 2010. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309822677_Design_thinking_as_a_form_of_intelligence.
———. “Design Thinking as a Form of Intelligence.” In DTRS8 Interpreting Design Thinking, edited by Kees Dorst, Susan Stewart, Ilka Staudinger, Bec Paton, and Andy Dong, 99–106. Sydney, 2010. http://bbcdcomdes.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/8/6/11866691/dtrs8_proceedings.pdf.
 Lackéus, Martin, Mats Lundqvist, and Karen Williams Middleton. “Opening up the Black Box of Entrepreneurial Education.” In 3E Conference, 23–24, 2015. http://bit.ly/2F0YhXd .
 Greene, Patricia. “A Global Consideration From Practice to Policy Around the World.” www.wise-qatar.org. Accessed February 13, 2018. https://www.wise-qatar.org/2015-wise-research-entrepreneurship-education; Babson College. “THE WORLD IS LEARNING HOW TO EDUCATE ENTREPRENEURS.” Accessed February 13, 2018. http://www.babson.edu/news-events/babson-news/Pages/2015-babson-scholars-present-new-entrepreneurship-education-research.aspx.
 McCarthy, Dan. “The Future of New Hampshire.” New Hampshire Magazine. http://www.nhmagazine.com/January-2018/The-Future-of-New-Hampshire/.
 William B. Gartner. (1989). Some Suggestions for Research on Entrepreneurial Traits and Characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878901400103
 Celuch, K., Bourdeau, B., & Winkel, D. (2017a). Entrepreneurial Identity: The Missing Link for Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(2), 1–20. ; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324414280_Entrepreneurial_identity_The_missing_link_for_entrepreneurship_education; Celuch, K., Bourdeau, B., & Winkel, D. (2017b). Entrepreneurial identity: the missing link for entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(2), 1–20; Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. E. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: a need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(5), 690–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2014-0123; Liguori, E., Winkler, C., Winkel, D., Marvel, M. R., Keels, J. K., van Gelderen, M., & Noyes, E. (2018). The Entrepreneurship Education Imperative: Introducing EE&P. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737290; Rushworth, S., Vanevenhoven, J., Winkel, D., & Liguori, E. (2016). Applying Entrepreneurial Action to Explore Entrepreneurship Pedagogy: The Entrepreneurship Education Project. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 27(2), 1. ; https://www2.stetson.edu/asbe/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/JBE-Spring-2016-Digital.pdf#page=10; Vanevenhoven, J., Winkel, D., Malewicki, D., Dougan, W. L., & Bronson, J. (2011). Varieties of Bricolage and the Process of Entrepreneurship. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 53. ; https://goo.gl/GSDLRK
 Amorós Espinosa, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V., & Stenholm, P. (2017). Necessity or opportunity? the effects of State fragility and economic development on entrepreneurial efforts (Serie Working Paper No. 42). Universidad del Desarrollo, School of Business and Economics. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/dsrwpaper/42.htm; Amorós, J. E., Basco, R., & Romaní, G. (2016). Determinants of early internationalization of new firms: the case of Chile. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0343-2; Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Etchebarne, M. S., Felzensztein, C., & Haar, J. (2015). International Entrepreneurship in Latin America: Lessons from Theory and Practice. In W. Newburry & M. A. Gonzalez-Perez (Eds.), International Business in Latin America: Innovation, Geography and Internationalization (pp. 57–82). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137409126_4; Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V., & Stenholm, P. (2017). Necessity or Opportunity? The Effects of State Fragility and Economic Development on Entrepreneurial Efforts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258717736857. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717736857; Amorós, J. E., Etchebarne, M. S., Zapata, I. T., & Felzensztein, C. (2016). International entrepreneurial firms in Chile: An exploratory profile. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2052–2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.150; Amorós, J. E., von Bloh, J., Levie, J., & Sternberg, R. (2016). Transnational Diaspora Entrepreneurship (TDE) meets Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) : Preliminary results of an empirical attempt to measure TDE between countries. In 2nd International Conference on Migration and Diaspora Entrepreneurship (p. 43). University of Bremen. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/61080/; Mandakovic, V., Cohen, B., & Amorós, J. E. (2015). Entrepreneurship Policy and Its Impact on the Cultural Legitimacy for Entrepreneurship in a Developing Country Context. In M. Peris-Ortiz & J. M. Merigó-Lindahl (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, Regional Development and Culture: An Institutional Perspective (pp. 109–125). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15111-3_7
 Jones, Colin. Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham UK ; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Pub, 2014; Jones, Colin. Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Edward Elgar, 2011. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/teaching-entrepreneurship-to-undergraduates; Jones, Colin, Kathryn Penaluna, Andy Penaluna, and Harry Matlay. “Claiming the Future of Enterprise Education.” Education + Training 56, no. 8/9 (October 31, 2014): 764–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0065; Maritz, Alex, Colin Jones, and Claudia Shwetzer. “The Status of Entrepreneurship Education in Australian Universities.” Education + Training 57, no. 8/9 (October 2015): 1020–35; Breslin, Dermot, and Colin Jones. “Developing an Evolutionary/Ecological Approach in Enterprise Education.” The International Journal of Management Education 12, no. 3 (November 1, 2014): 433–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.010; Jones, Colin. “Contemplating an Evolutionary Approach to Entrepreneurship.” World Futures 62, no. 8 (2006): 576–594.
 Burnett, Hermina. “Designing and Implementing an Undergraduate Course in Entrepreneurship in Australia Using Experiential and Problem-Based Learning Techniques.” Training & Management Development Methods 22, no. 5 (2008): A75.; Burnett, Hermina HM, and Adela J. McMurray. “Exploring Business Incubation from a Family Perspective: How Start-up Family Firms Experience the Incubation Process in Two Australian Incubators.” Small Enterprise Research 16, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 60–75. https://doi.org/10.5172/ser.16.2.60.; Burnett, Hermina, and Adela McMurray. “Exploring the Influence of Communication on Innovation and Readiness for Change in Small Business.” Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends 2, no. 1 (2004): 1–11.; Burnett, Hermina, Megan Paull, and D. A. Holloway. “Entrepreneurship and the Third Sector: Volunteering Practises in Not-for-Profit Organisations,” 2011. https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/96a70cb2-2300-43fe-997c-d38d2335be14/1/PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf.
 Maritz, Alex. “Illuminating the Black Box of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes: Part 2.” Education + Training 59, no. 5 (May 9, 2017): 471–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2017-0018; Maritz, Alex, and Christopher R. Brown. “Illuminating the Black Box of Entrepreneurship Education Programs.” Education + Training 55, no. 3 (2013): 234–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911311309305; Maritz, Alex, Colin Jones, and Claudia Shwetzer. “The Status of Entrepreneurship Education in Australian Universities.” Education + Training 57, no. 8/9 (October 2015): 1020–35; Maritz, Alex. “Enhancing Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy through Vocational Entrepreneurship Education Programmes.” Journal of Vocational Education & Training 65, no. 4 (2013). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13636820.2013.853685.
 Abdullah, M., Nel, P., Mellalieu, P., & Thaker, A. (2016). Immigrant entrepreneurs in Malaysia : an exploratory study on their business success and prospects in small retail business. ; http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/3576; Frederick, H. H., Thompson, J., Mellalieu, P. J., & Dana, L.-P. (2004). New Zealand Perspectives of International Entrepreneurship. In Handbook of research on international entrepreneurship (pp. 533–548). Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar; Kearns, N., Saifoloi, M., & Mellalieu, P. (2014). Introducing Education for Enterprise within island and immigrant Pacific communities: Capacity building lessons from the New Zealand experience; Mellalieu, P. (2015). Wealth with green : lessons with exemplary green enterprise. http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/3382
 Top 25 Entrepreneurship: Ugrad | The Princeton Review. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20191009163333/https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=top-25-entrepreneurship-ugrad
 Aguirre Guillén, J. M., Torres García, A., & Giordano, K. (2010). Tecnológico de Monterrey. In M. L. Fetters, P. G. Greene, M. P. Rice, & J. S. Butler (Eds.), The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices (pp. 122–149). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.
 Babson College. (n.d.). Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? | News and Events. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.babson.edu/news-events/babson-news/Pages/110620-does-entrepreneurship-education-have-value-can-entrepreneurship-be-taught.aspx; Lange, J., Marram, E., Jawahar, A., Yong, W., & Bygrave, W. (2011). Does an entrepreneurship education have lasting value? A study of careers of 4,000 alumni. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31(6). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e89f/7df3311d9ba3d4b1379c67fed208a1c63565.pdf; Lange, J., Marram, E., Jawahar, A., Yong, W., & Bygrave, W. D. (2014). Does an Entrepreneurship Education Have Lasting Value? A Study of Careers of 3,775 Alumni (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2412930). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2412930
 Charney, A., & Libecap, G. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona, 1985-1999. Revised Final Report to the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Kansas City: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 29. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.584.9846&rep=rep1&type=pdf; University of Arizona. (2000). Graduate Entrepreneurs Prosper, Innovate: New Study Indicates Entrepreneurship Program Alumni Start More New Businesses, Develop More Products, Make More Money than Their Peers. https://web.archive.org/web/20120416085830/http://ebr.eller.arizona.edu/research/entrepreneurSummary.pdf
 Yuen-Ping, H., Singh, A., & Wong, P.-K. (2010). National University of Singapore. In M. L. Fetters, P. G. Greene, M. P. Rice, & J. S. Butler (Eds.), The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices (pp. 122–149). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.
 Allen, K., & Lieberman, A. (2010). University of Southern California. In M. L. Fetters, P. G. Greene, M. P. Rice, & J. S. Butler (Eds.), The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices (pp. 122–149). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.