Towards transformative experiential learning in science- and technology-based entrepreneurship education for sustainable technological innovation

Blankesteijn, Marlous; Houtkamp, Jorick; Bossink, Bart Article Towards transformative experiential learning in scienceand technology-based entrepreneurship education for sustainable technological innovation Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK) Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Blankesteijn, Marlous; Houtkamp, Jorick; Bossink, Bart (2024) : Towards transformative experiential learning in scienceand technology-based entrepreneurship education for sustainable technological innovation, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100544 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327447 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Towards transformative experiential learning in scienceand technology-based entrepreneurship education for sustainable technological innovation Marie Louise (M.L.) Blankesteijn a, *, Jorick (J.) Houtkamp b , Bart (B.A.G.) Bossink c a Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, Amsterdam 1081 HV, the Netherlands b Rijksdienst Voor Ondernemend Nederland, Prinses Beatrixlaan 2, Den Haag 2595 AL, the Netherlands c Department of Chemistry & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1108, Amsterdam 1081 HZ, the Netherlands ARTICLE INFO Article History: Received 5 January 2023 Accepted 8 August 2024 Available online 17 August 2024 ABSTRACT Science and technology-based entrepreneurship education (SBEE) is crucial for the valorisation of newly developed fundamental knowledge and innovative technology in science faculties. This is an important factor in enabling science to respond to societal challenges related to sustainability. However, its didactics are currently underdeveloped. Experiential learning plays an important role in SBEE. Against this background, the current study addresses the following research question: What are the specifications of experiential learning for further developing the didactics of SBEE, as identified through systematic assessment? The study reveals that significant improvement is possible when systematic attention is paid to the implementation of four core activities of experiential learning: bringing real-worldness into the learning setting, recognising the illdefined nature of management problems and entrepreneurial challenges, encouraging involvement in the execution of management interventions, and highlighting the importance of reflection. Furthermore, we draw upon the literature stating that for a transformative experiential learning effect, the sole focus on a business logic in current SBEE needs to be transcended to enable such entrepreneurship and sustainability education to contribute to the kind of out-of-the-box technological innovation solutions required for the current, pressing sustainability challenges that society faces. This study provides the first evidence that dedicated attention to critical reflection is a crucial component in the design of the experiential learning process for scienceand technology-based entrepreneurship and sustainability education. © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Keywords: Science and technology entrepreneurship education Entrepreneurship education Sustainability Technological innovation Experiential learning Transformative experiential learning Reflection JEL classification: O310: Innovation & invention: processes & incentives O320: Management of technological innovation and R&D M130: new firms Startups I230: Higher education Research institutions I150: Health and economic development Q200: renewable resources and conservation: general Introduction Scienceand technology-based entrepreneurship education (SBEE) at the bachelor’s and master’s levels is crucial for the valorisation of newly developed fundamental knowledge and innovative technology in science faculties. It is an important, if not essential, element in university policy strategies and governance to empower science to respond to societal challenges related to sustainability. SBEE is also a relatively new phenomenon compared to classic management and entrepreneurship education. While traditional management and entrepreneurship education is often provided by business schools and, to a lesser extent, via engineering education at polytechnical universities, SBEE is offered by faculties of science (Blankesteijn et al., 2021). As an academic endeavour, SBEE is closer to the ambitions of technology transfer offices, science hubs, and start-up accelerators than to the aims of business schools. Business schools have increasingly adopted a purely academic identity with limited connections to the ‘outside’professional world, thus inducing - according to critics such as Gosling and Mintzberg (2006) and Bennis and O’Toole (2005) -an‘institutionalized irrelevance’of their work in society: ‘It [their sole focus on * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100544 2444-569X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 Journal of Innovation &Knowledge https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge scientific reputation because of, what the same paper dubs provocatively as “physics envy”] gives scientific respectability to the research they enjoy doing [..]. In short, the model advances the careers and satisfies the egos of the professoriate’(Bennis & O’Toole, 2005,p.4). SBEE seeks to escape this logic and the ‘institutionalized irrelevance’that follows from it, and aims to contribute to the valorisation and sustainability agenda that nowadays, in addition to education and research as two primary missions, often defines the ‘third primary mission’of many universities (Blankesteijn et al., 2019). These co-existing and interrelated three missions in today’s universities have been the subject of considerable debate, as noted by Heller (2022, chapter 1). While many universities currently shape the three missions simultaneously, the development of universities towards this multimission approach over time can also be interpreted as a development of generations of universities. The first generation of universities focuses mainly on education; the second generation builds on this by adding and integrating research; and the third generation adds and incorporates a broader soci(et)al function (Heller, 2022, chapter 1). This evolution arguably calls for the development of a ’fourth-generation university’that addresses the tensions arising from the current emphasis on further developing multiple-mission universities; this is particularly relevant with regard to the third mission, which entails, for example, the involvement of entrepreneurial thinking in and around universities, opinions about the university’s role in serving society, and the associated value in addressing societal issues stemming from a request for increased environmental and social sustainability (Heller, 2022, chapter 1). Not only are the locus and long-term academic ambitions of sciencebased entrepreneurship education different, so are its practical goals. Science-based entrepreneurship serves, amongst other objectives, to develop and transfer technological innovation from a science/R&D context to one of practical application (Boh et al., 2016). SBEE is built upon the notion that there is a gap between fundamental science and application, and that university-industry technology transfer needs to be facilitated via entrepreneurship education (Lackeus & Williams-Middleton, 2015). Students in SBEE are taught to cross this ‘valley of death’: the gap between research and commercialisation of research, between researchers and entrepreneurs and tech investors. Students need to experience first-hand the drivers and barriers in turning science into commercial application (Barr et al., 2009). Experiential learning is a central teaching method to cross the valley of death (Van Ewijk et al., 2020). This teaching method has been increasingly employed in management education to essentially bring the real world into the classroom (Yardley et al., 2012). Learning about ‘wicked’management problems based on experience is an important component of experiential management education. Experiential learning facilitates an in-depth understanding of real-world entrepreneurship and management challenges. SBEE programmes hence hold the promise of unlocking the huge innovative potential of science and technology for the betterment of society, especially given current societal challenges in the field of sustainability (Klofsten et al., 2019). This raises questions about the teaching methods adopted in these programmes, especially regarding the extent to which they enable experiential learning, which is crucial for management and entrepreneurship education. Some form of experiential learning is required in entrepreneurship education, as research has shown that the creative and innovative abilities needed to develop an entrepreneurial skill set and attitude require experiential educational methods (Van Ewijk et al., 2020). However, little is known about experiential learning as part of the didactics of science-based entrepreneurship education (Dhliwayo, 2008;H€ agg & Kurczewska, 2020;Mujuru et al., 2022;Politis, 2005). Strikingly, the basic principles of experiential learning are often implicitly applied in the design of entrepreneurship educational programmes, which raises the question of how and to what extent experiential learning contributes to the established learning outcomes of SBEE. This has immediate academic and practical relevance since, as Spence (2001, p. 2) puts it, ‘We won’t meet the needs for more and better higher education until professors become designers of learning experiences, and not teachers’. The current study aimed to fill the abovementioned gap in the literature. Drawing on the literature on experiential learning, we aimed to analytically determine how this type of learning contributes to SBEE programmes, and what needs to be considered and eventually deserves dedicated attention from teachers and coordinators involved in such programmes. The following research question guided the study: What are the specifications of experiential learning for further developing the didactics of SBEE, as identified through systematic assessment? The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we present the theoretical background focused on experiential learning. Then, we describe four analytical categories that were developed in the study, rooted in the scientific literature on experiential learning in management and entrepreneurship education. These categories were used to assess, in a conceptual-analytical and exploratory fashion, the contribution of experience-based teaching to developing entrepreneurial intention and action rooted in fundamental, exact science. Next, in the methodology section, we describe the bachelor’s and master’s programmes in Science, Business, and Innovation (SBI) at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, analysed as a representative case study of SBEE. The design of a set of courses is presented in the results section. In the discussion section, we further explore and interpret the results. By way of conclusion, we discuss the extent to which experiential learning and its didactics contribute to the learning outcomes of SBEE and present lessons and recommendations drawn from this study for other SBEE programmes. Experiential learning in management and entrepreneurship education Kolb (2003) developed the classic and still dominant approach to experiential learning already in the nineteen eighties, drawing upon the rich and classic learning philosophy tradition, for which John Dewey (amongst others) laid the basis at the beginning of the 20th century (Jarvis, 1987). Kolb’s theory is theoretically grounded in educational psychology. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle consists of the mental movement of the learner from the translation of concrete experience to reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation. He defines learning as follows: ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’(Kolb, 2003, p. 45). Thus, learning is enabled, and new knowledge is constructed. This is widely acknowledged as the first comprehensive understanding of experiential learning in developmental psychology. It is comprehensive in the sense that it departs from the assumption that humans have an innate capacity to learn, whereby experience acts as a catalyst for learning (Kayes, 2002,p.139). Experiential learning theory defines four phases in the learning process: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, and active experimentation (Fig. 1). In the concrete experience stage, the experiential learning cycle emphasises personal involvement with people in everyday situations. In this stage, the learner tends to rely more on feelings than on a systematic approach to problems and situations. In a learning situation, the learner relies on their ability to be open-minded and adaptable to change. Through reflective observation, people understand ideas and situations from different perspectives. In a learning situation, the learner relies on patience, objectivity, and careful judgement, but would not necessarily take any action. The learner relies on their own thoughts and feelings in forming opinions. In the abstract conceptualisation stage, learning involves the use of theories, logic, and ideas, rather than feelings, to understand problems or situations. Typically, the learner relies on systematic planning and develops theories and ideas to M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 2 solve problems. In the fourth stage of active experimentation, learning takes an active form, namely, experimenting with changing situations. The learner takes a practical approach and is concerned with what really works, as opposed to simply observing a situation. Learning starts at one of these four stages, not necessarily with the first stage. Per phase, Kolb distinguishes four learning styles that optimise its learning effect, which are related to the different phases of experiential learning: diverging or the diverger (preference for feeling and watching), belonging to the phase between concrete experience and reflective observation; assimilating or the assimilator (preference for thinking and watching), belonging to the phase from reflective observation to abstract conceptualisation; converging or the converger (preference for thinking and doing), belonging to the phase between abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation; and accommodating or the accommodator (preference for feeling and doing), from active experimentation to concrete experience (Mainemelis et al., 2002;McCarthy, 2016). Learners thereby either horizontally iterate on the axis from active experimentation to reflective observation, which, in theory, allows for a transformative experiential learning process, or iterate between concrete experience and abstract conceptualisation, which allows for an experiential learning experience that enhances their grasp of the experience. These learning styles and related processes are arguably relevant in the didactical choices of a teacher, in each phase of the experiential cycle. Several authors have further refined Kolb’s interpretation of experiential learning. Politis (2005) deduced three main components of entrepreneurial learning based on a comprehensive review of experiential learning: entrepreneurs’career experience, the transformation process, and entrepreneurial knowledge in terms of effectiveness in recognising and acting on entrepreneurial opportunities and coping with the liabilities of newness. Healey and Jenkins (2000) emphasise the learning styles of students and the importance of matching these styles with teachers’teaching styles. Further, as Tomkins and Ulus (2016) emphasise, experiential learning can be considered to mark a shift from student-centred learning to relationship-centred learning. Understood as such, it can be seen as a form of sensemaking. Lisko and O’dell (2010) emphasise its constructionist perspective, focusing on social interaction, which makes it especially valuable in medical and nursing education. Specific types of action learning, such as problem-based learning and case-based teaching, have been developed and tested against the background of experiential learning (Perusso & Baaken, 2020;Perusso et al., 2021). Kayes (2002) considers the development of the theory in the context of the linguistic turn in the social sciences and humanities and the role of language in constructing experience. Kayes (2002) refines the experiential learning theory by connecting personal learning to social learning. Tan and Vicente (2019) combine student-centric learning with experiential learning and define experiential learning as constituting work with real-life clients. McClellan and Hyle (2012) emphasise the importance of an unfamiliar context in sensitising students to the experiences in a research context in an anthropological sense. Meanwhile, the experiential learning theory has also been criticised. Kolb arguably does not pay enough attention to reflection, especially to cognition and emotion as mediating factors in this process (Boud et al., 2013). Kolb also pays relatively little attention to the importance of including a diverse team of teachers in the experiential learning process to do justice, especially with regard to reflecting-onaction, to the diverse perspectives and backgrounds of teachers and learners (Anderson, 2019). Garner (2000) criticised the theoretical underpinnings of learner types and questioned whether learning is confined solely to these learning types (De Ciantis & Kirton, 1996). An important question raised by Smith et al. (2004) is whether learning can indeed be typified in stages. Fenwick (2001) criticises the constructivist outlook of the theory and its lack of attention to context and the role of the teacher. Ord and Leather (2011) doubt the absence of other proven learning styles such as abstract experience, passive learning, and secondary learning. Other criticisms are of a psychodynamic, social, and institutional nature, raising the following questions and concerns: How does his theory reflect psychodynamic processes? What role does the social context and background play (Reynolds, 1998)? How can experiential learning be institutionally facilitated in the educational system (Vince, 1998)? Despite these refinements and criticisms, Kolb’s theory on experiential learning remains immensely influential in research on management education (Fielding, 1994;Robotham, 1995), and has, because of its impact, even been denoted at a certain point in time as ‘taken for granted’due to its common and widespread acceptance (Beard & Wilson, 2006). It is generally perceived as one of the most influential theories in management learning (Vince, 1998). Blaylock et al. (2009) analyse experiential learning as part of the ‘relevance turn’in management education: away from the ‘scientification’of management practice (cf. Bennis & O’Toole, 2005) towards ‘business skills laboratories’. In management education, experiential learning relies on the idea that managers learn, by 1. recognising and 2. responding to a diverse set of environmental and personal demands (Kayes, 2002, p. 140). In business schools, experiential learning theory has been gaining solid ground, for approximately ten years, as an explicitly acknowledged teaching method (Berglund & Verduyn, 2018;Kayes, 2002). From the nineteen sixties until nearly ten years ago, management education mainly focused on teaching theoretical approaches to address management problems (Bridgman et al., 2018; Raelin, 2007). This has changed only in the last decade because of a growing recognition of the need for managers who are better equipped to solve problems in professional practice. Experiential teaching methods are increasingly included in management education in order to close the ‘relevance gap’between education and practice −that is, the extent to which management education prepares students for real professional life as an (R&D) manager; for instance, for solving complex management problems for which a traditional theory-based management education programme does not prepare them sufficiently (Perusso et al., 2020). SBEE, one of the newest fruits on the tree of management education, emerged due to a shift in the perception of the relevance of academic research and education in society. The main task of academic education has long been understood as preparing students for an academic research career only. However, the position and task Fig. 1. Experiential learning: Phases, learning styles, and types of learners (adapted from McCarthy, 2016). M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 3 perception of universities has shifted to include research and education that makes references to and is conducted in a real-life context of application (Blankesteijn et al., 2019). An important driver of this development is the idea that economic progress can be achieved through scientific innovation. However, despite increasing scientific knowledge, commercialisation based on innovative findings in science generally remains limited, especially in Europe (Anon., Dealroom, 2023). Entrepreneurship education is widely perceived as the missing link here, which is manifested in a growth of academic programmes focusing on teaching (science-and tech-based) entrepreneurship (Barr et al., 2009) and increasing attention to thematising entrepreneurship at strategic levels (Blankesteijn et al., 2019). Experiential teaching, based on Kolb’s understanding, has proven to be a highly effective teaching method in entrepreneurship education (Pryor, 2016). Experiential learning is a requirement in entrepreneurship education (Van Ewijk et al., 2020), as discussed above. Although many task-related skills can be taught through a traditional didactic approach, the creative and innovative abilities needed in entrepreneurship education presuppose and require experiential educational methods (Henry et al., 2005). Experiential learning in teaching praxis The following are relevant questions for teaching praxis: What does learning that starts with experience mean, on a fundamental, epistemological level, for our understanding of the development of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes? How is new knowledge developed and constructed by learners in experiential learning, and how does this process differ from a classical, cognition-focused idea of learning? What does this mean for teaching practices? Indeed, the mechanisms underlying learning and knowledge development in the context of experiential learning praxis are fundamentally different from those based on the common-sensical understanding of how learning is achieved. Raelin (2007) argues that teaching methods for experiential learning in management education build upon an epistemology that moves away from the classical, strict division between thinking and acting. Experiential learning assumes that through acting, we enrich our thinking - and vice versa. Reflection is pivotal in this process, to optimise the learning effect of moving along this spectrum (H€ agg & Kurczewska, 2020). Experiential learning thus requires a new epistemological vantage point, different from the common-sensical one based on the assumption of a strict Cartesian distinction (‘cogito ergo sum’) between thinking and acting −and consequently, a rethinking of classic teaching methods such as lecturing and in-classroom assignments focusing on enhancing cognition based on assessment of the teachers only. This type of thinking about praxis and experiential learning has its foundation in the ‘practice turn’in social theory on knowledge development (Schatzki et al., 2001). This epistemology that experiential learning reflects and builds upon also contrasts with the commonsensical and often implicit theory of learning and knowledge development that many teachers hold. The commonsense way in which we assume we understand the world, based on the Cartesian split between thinking and acting, legitimises the classical higher education teaching methods of unidirectional teacher-to-student knowledge transfer, such as lectures. Teachers thereby convey ‘information to a captive and passive student body’(Raelin, 2007), focusing on the development of intellect and cognition only. The underlying epistemology of experiential learning, starting from experience instead of cognition, implies that the extent to which the four consecutive aspects manifest in teaching practices needs to be evaluated. These aspects are derived from an extended literature review of research on teaching praxis in experiential learning. The literature, as discussed in the following paragraphs and summarised in Table 2, emphasises the importance of 1. involving an element of real-worldness in education, as referring to the phase of experience; 2. its explicit acknowledgement and understanding of management problems as being in their very essence ill-defined, as referring to the phase of abstract conceptualisation; 3. involvement in the execution of the designed solutions/recommendations, which reflects the phase of active experimentation; and 4. the importance of reflection in the learning process. This study examines educational practices from these four perspectives. Our research relates to discussions on methods for experiential learning as such, which are indeed currently actively applied in management education practices such as action learning, problem-based learning, and case-based teaching (Bridgman et al., 2018;Perusso & Baaken, 2020;Perusso et al., 2021). However, in the relatively new field of SBEE, considerations regarding tapping into students’learning styles have not yet been explicitly guiding didactical choices in teaching practice. The literature has often focused on researching learning styles per experiential learning stage and emphasises the need to diversify work forms to optimise alignment with the diverse learning styles of student groups (e.g. Manolis et al., 2013;Kolb & Kolb, 2006). Before making systematic decisions on appealing to learning styles and diversifying work forms, we aim to return to the fundamentals. A thorough understanding of the basic starting point is essential - specifically, it is important to grasp the specifications of experiential learning for further developing the didactics of SBEE in the first place. We analyse these teaching practices from the aforementioned four perspectives, which are further explored by delving into the bodies of literature that focus on them and are presented in the literature review below. We identified related literature by searching the Web of Science for the most cited papers on the four phases of experiential learning. We then selected papers with a specific focus on their application in the classroom, via concrete interventions. Each body of literature identified in this way circumscribes a phase of experiential learning and proposes and tests certain didactical formats and interventions that operationalise experiential learning. We use these four bodies of literature to construct analytical categories to conceptually analyse the case (Boeije, 2009; Yin, 2009). Experience: bringing real-worldness into the classroom The first type of teaching praxis concerns the teacher’s recognition of the importance of bringing the real world into the classroom. This is referred to as the teacher attempting to replicate the ‘real-worldness’of management and entrepreneurship practices (Dollinger, 2008). Students learn to deal with elements of uncertainty, pressure, moral judgement, and risk. Becoming acquainted with an authentic work environment allows learners to acquire ‘the dynamic and culture of the practice’. Sharing of such insights of the learner with other learners could facilitate discussions of both the broad and specific implications of acquired theoretical knowledge for the practice of university-industry technology transfer. Carriger (2015) specifically focuses on the role of problem-based learning here, as opposed to lecture-based teaching −whereby the problem is located in the real world. To convey real-worldness, a specific focus on real-world problems that can be encountered in management praxis is needed. Case-based teaching also uses the real world as a vantage point. Cases can be brought into the classroom via guest lectures, (gamebased) simulations, and portfolios of source materials that inform the definition of a real-world case as the basis for case-based teaching (Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018;Sachau & Naas, 2010;Theroux, 2009). Real-worldness serves to research a case in its full complexity. This serves as a starting point for detangling the case and moving from wicked, ill-defined management issues to a more conceptual delineation. It is about invoking a joint process between students and teachers, whereby they start to consecutively recognise and fully M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 4 acknowledge the messiness of management problems in the real world. Bringing the real world into the classroom serves as an experiential alternative to the soloistic teacher’s act of boiling this complexity down into a neatly ordered theoretical-conceptual problem in classical management education (Druckman & Ebner, 2018;Rosenthal, 2016;Theroux, 2009). It depends on a process of co-creation of the problem definition by both students and teachers. Abstract conceptualisation: recognition of the ill-defined nature of management problems The second body of literature posits that experiential learning occurs when students recognise the inherently ill-defined nature of management problems (Dehler & Welsh, 2014;Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006;Raelin, 2009). Students often struggle to grasp a situation at an abstract conceptual level, as they have traditionally been taught. Traditionally, management education cases have clear (learning) goals to help students learn, understand, and synthesise theory. The relevant information and answers can be found in the learning materials. This use of cases has been criticised by Raelin (2009, p. 407) as a practice of ‘spoon-feeding’‘information to a captive and passive student body’that ‘tries to make neat an activity that is normally messy’. However, the nature of management problems in the real world is often complex and unstructured and might disrupt current logic. They are, in their very essence, ill-defined. In experiential learning, this impossibility of defining a problem is perceived as a given. This represents an important starting point for management and entrepreneurship education. Gosling and Mintzberg (2006) emphasise the importance to teach management education ‘as if both matter’, by which they mean that management education should not aim to overly theorise management to teach students the subject. ‘Education’is just as crucial as ‘management’in the learning process. This highlights the importance of making deliberate choices in educational design to acknowledge the inherently ill-defined nature of management problems. Instead of encouraging an immediate reflex to theorise management problems - often a misleading way to make them seem controllable - the focus should be on acknowledging the impossibility of conceptualising the problem, at least without direct involvement in it, that is, the execution phase of experiential learning. Starting with acknowledgement of the ill-defined nature of the problem in the classroom guarantees effective experiential learning (Dehler & Welsh, 2014). Second, a clear delineation of the problem is required. Socratic methods for questioning, whereby fundamental assumptions are researched via a particular way of posing questions by the teachers, as well as conceptualisation techniques, methods of brain mapping, and structured group discussions serve as means to move from illdefined problems to abstract conceptualisation. Another technique that Sachau and Naas (2010) discuss are ‘case competitions’, which emphasises the importance of pre-discussing cases in their full complexity before enabling learners to design and execute effective solutions. Key learning goals that acknowledge the ill-defined nature of management problems include developing research skills and conceptualising these problems as manageable ones. This involves reformulating empirical situations into conceptual frameworks. The process is most effective when exercises in abstract conceptualisation are designed as co-creative efforts to define the problem, with support from students, teachers, and even professionals, in case they are involved. Involvement in execution as part of management and entrepreneurship education The third aspect in experiential teaching praxis researched and discussed in the literature is the execution phase (Blaylock et al., 2009;Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018). In experiential learning, students need to be challenged not only to define problems and design solutions, but also to test these solutions. This phase involves executing the envisioned solution and experimenting with different outcomes. This phase of experiential learning focuses on execution by encouraging students to adopt a learning approach characterised by seeking solutions to problems. Blaylock et al. (2009, p. 583) discuss the use of ‘business skills laboratories’in this context, to ‘peel away layers to reveal hidden strategic, economic, competitive, human and political complexities’. Students are immersed in the reality of a business and are mentored by a staff member −differing from simulation as a teaching method, which is often supported by software tools (Hyams-Ssekasi & Taheri, 2022). Farashahi and Tajeddin (2018) researched how students develop problem-solving skills through experiential learning methods such as case-based teaching, based on a sample of 194 students who participated in simulations of management problems. They confirm the great added value of such methods, as opposed to lecturing alone. Scott (2017) studied how experiential learning methods contribute to management education, finding a strong positive effect of action learning and problem-based learning on both leadership development and problem-solving skills. Internships and project education provide contexts in which students can experiment with problem definitions and subsequent solutions, enabling experiential learning. These teaching methods acknowledge the importance of being involved in active experimentation and emphasise the importance of hands-on involvement in the execution of the envisioned solution. Project education is often implemented to provide students with exercises related to developing recommendations and executing proposed solutions. Reflection as a means to translate experience into new knowledge, skills, and attitudes The fourth research stream on experiential learning in teaching praxis focuses on the importance of reflection on experience in the classroom (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018;Berglund & Verduyn, 2018;Boud et al., 2013;Cajiao & Burke, 2016;Moon, 2013;Nicol et al., 2014;Sadler, 2014;Sch€ on, 2017). Through reflection, students learn that the process leading to a solution requires stepping back from experience, even while still being immersed in learning at the cognitive level. Boud et al. (1987) identify reflection as crucial in enabling a process whereby lessons are drawn from experiences, such as through internships. Coaching and providing feedback during experiential learning can serve to stimulate reflection. Sch€ on (2017) conducted seminal work on reflection, reflective practitioners in particular, highlighting the important role of tacit knowledge in professional practice, developed through experience. Ajjawi and Boud (2018) have also confirmed the importance of reflection. They show that feedback dialogues may be seen as a form of reflection, as they aim to have an effect on learners that extends beyond learners’immediate tasks. It thus stimulates self-regulatory learning. Cajiao and Burke (2016) additionally emphasise the importance of psychological safety in social interactions to facilitate learner reflection in management education. Grey (2004) perceives reflection as an antidote to management education as an elitist endeavour and prioritises reflection in what has been dubbed ‘critical management education’(cf. Berglund & Verduyn, 2018). Nicol et al. (2014) add reflection as a central element in peer feedback processes as a means to optimise the effect of feedback. Sadler (2014) sees a similar role for reflection in feedback, addressing and acknowledging its higherorder effect as compared to feedback only. Perusso et al. (2020) distinguish three types of reflection that enable such systematic reflection through coaching and feedback: first-order reflection-in-action, second-order reflection-on-action, and third-order critical reflection. First-order reflection-in-action requires students to re-think rules, facts, and theories, and invent M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 5 and experiment with their new understanding during the experiential learning project. The coaching teacher might point out inconsistencies during the interactions and suggest new directions. Therefore, the teacher creates an active learning environment that stimulates the reflection and development of competencies. As second-order reflection, reflection-on-action considers what happened during the execution but discusses the experiences after the same. The teacher helps students move beyond the intuitive actions that have been taken and develop competencies by understanding their behaviour and considering alternative behaviours that might be more effective. Finally, third-order critical reflection focuses students’ attention on personal and hidden assumptions and aims to stimulate thinking about how personal influences shape their experiences. Feedback and coaching are aspects that a teacher can directly control and consider while designing the educational context. Hibbert (2013) emphasises the importance of reflexivity in informing thoughtful, responsible, and ethical management practices. He sees reflexive dialogue as valuable to address and make use of diversity in the classroom. It is a means to address power issues, and on a deeper level, spark new perspectives on the ‘sociological imagination’, ideally enabling ‘ideological exploration’(p. 820). Further, it assists in, as Bridgman et al. (2018) point out, moving away from the use of cases in experiential learning, as ‘profit maximization toolkits’only. Hibbert et al. (2010) examined the implications of reflexivity for research practice. They emphasise its importance as part of the research process to rule out bias and develop new principles for understanding. Reflection can be stimulated through formative feedback practices; reflective conversations with, for example, mentors; and a focus on competence development and professional development. Reflection is crucial as it systematically exercises the skill of critical thinking. Reflection potentially contributes to transformative learning experiences (Frisk Redman & Larson, 2011;Lans et al., 2014;Wals & Jickling, 2002). Method This empirical research involved a case study with embedded units (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The embedded units in the case study were two programmes for SBEE: the bachelor’s and master’s programmes in SBI at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. These programmes have been developed over a period of fifteen years. In our methodology, we combined interviews, observations, and document analysis to gather comprehensive data on experiential learning exercises offered to students in the different programmes. The collected data were meticulously organised in our custom case study databases (Yin, 2009). The dataset included course guides specifically stating the learning goals of each course, annual reports of both programmes, overviews and discussions of intended learning outcomes, examination files and plans, teachers’(first-hand) experiences, and digital learning environments and tools (e.g. teaching materials such as lecture slides). The data represent course materials and official documents as well as the first-hand experiences of the authors involved in the programme in crucial management positions. d These documents represent formal statements on the content and position of the educational programmes at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. They have been used in formal government-ordered accreditations of the educational programmes, events aimed at providing information to prospective students, and yearly management and control cycles of the university. The documents have been written and compiled by key professors, directors, and advisors involved in building, implementing, and managing the programmes. Data triangulation was performed to validate our findings. The data were triangulated by cross-comparing these documents (Farquhar et al., 2020). We also sought feedback from those involved in the programmes. We conducted fact checking of different versions of this paper by these key actors and/or related academic staff members to ensure the reliability and validity of the outcomes of this study and their corresponding descriptions (Yin, 2009). Case study The case study with its two embedded units focused on the bachelor’s and master’s programmes in SBI at the Faculty of Science at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. SBI students study how (natural) science can be developed into economically, socially, and ecologically viable opportunities, in turn contributing to commercially and socially valuable products, services, processes, methods, and approaches. First, students gain natural scientific knowledge in the disciplinary fields of chemistry and physics, related to topics in the sustainable energy sciences and life sciences. Second, they learn about the social and scientific fundamentals of innovation sciences, business processes, and organisational sciences. Entrepreneurship is a central theme in both programmes. The programmes are offered in the Faculty of Science by the Department of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences and the Department of Physics and Astronomy. Both the programmes have been formally accredited by the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), a Dutch-Flemish organisation accrediting higher education programs in the Netherlands and Belgium. Additionally, the bachelor’s programme holds the Special Feature Entrepreneurship of the NVAO, a national quality mark that highlights dedicated attention in the programme for the development of students’knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to entrepreneurship. These programmes distinguish themselves from similar programmes taught in other regions of the Netherlands by teaching innovation management at the firm level, together with a strong focus on science-based, technological product innovations stemming from knowledge and insights from the fields of physics and chemistry. The basic concept of the educational programmes is that students can choose their learning modules, by taking elective natural science courses, social science courses, or courses with an interdisciplinary character. The design of the programmes is such that students have a solid to good background in the natural sciences, social sciences, and innovation sciences, as well as experience with settings in practice in which science-based innovation through valorisation takes place. The emphasis is on two domains: ‘life and health’, focusing on valorisation of drug development, medical technology, and medical treatment, and ‘energy and sustainability’, concentrating on valorisation of clean and renewable energy technology and circular products and production processes. Examples of natural science courses are ‘Materials for Energy and Environmental Sustainability’and ‘Biomedical Modelling and Simulation’. Social sciences are, for example, covered in the course ‘Business, Innovation and Value Creation in the Life Science Industry’and ‘New Ways of Working’. Innovation sciences are, for example, represented in courses including ‘Management and Organization of Technological Innovation’and ‘Entrepreneurship and Innovation’. Students work on projects in and for companies during the programmes. In the bachelor’s programme, students engage in innovation projects and the bachelor’s project, making up for a total of 48 study credits according to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) of the 180 ECTS devoted to project-based, casebased education. Half of the SBI master’s programme (60 ECTS of the 120 ECTS), that is, the last part of the first, second, and final years, is dedicated to applying natural science and business and innovation science in the empirical field: the science project of 24 ECTS in the first year, and the master’s project of 36 ECTS in the second and final d An overview of the data can be found in the appendix. M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 6 years. In the last part of the first year, students apply the appropriated knowledge in the science project. The master’s project is dedicated to studying the integration of natural sciences in commercial business trajectories in practice. Students learn about integration in theory and practice. They gain practical experience through the science project and the master’s project. Data collection Table 1 presents a selection of courses from the SBI bachelor’s and master’s programmes that generate both theoretical and practical student experiences linked to scienceand technology-based entrepreneurship. The courses meet the fundamental basis of elements discussed in Section 2. Experiential learning is especially important in SBEE (Henry et al., 2005;Pryor, 2016;Van Ewijk et al., 2020). As previously discussed, factors supporting experiential learning in the classroom assist in constructing and reconstructing experiential learning processes in teaching praxis in these programmes. As such, lessons drawn from these programmes could be useful for similar academic educational programmes in other settings. Analytical framework Below, we present a literature-based analytical framework constructed to enable a structured and literature-guided empirical case study. Table 2 presents an overview of the four aspects discussed in the literature review. The analytical framework serves as an instrument for systematically studying, categorising, and discussing findings from the empirical cases (Yin, 2009). By identifying themes in the existing literature and analysing them in the two embedded cases, we were able to recognise the broader meanings and implications of the experiential learning exercises in the case study (Boeije, 2009). Analytical validity and transferability This study was based on an in-depth, single case study design with two embedded units. This case study generates an in-depth, fine-grained understanding of a situation, phenomenon, and/or setting (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The case study is exploratory, as the didactics of SBEE are relatively under-researched. To aim for generalisability of the findings to comparable cases in universities, that is, to realise analytical validity of the findings for comparable cases (Yin, 2009), an educational programme was chosen that fits within a relatively new and growing landscape of similar educational tracks focusing on entrepreneurship education, as shown by Audretsch and Caiazza (2016),Audretsch (2017) and Clarysse et al. (2009) for entrepreneurship education in general, and more specifically for SBEE, by Barr et al. (2009),Lackeus & WilliamsMiddleton, 2015 and Maresch et al. (2016). Appendix 1 provides an overview of the data sources. Each source in the appendix is referred to by a number, which is used for referencing in the results section. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Accuracy with regard to representation of the data in the results section was verified by key informants involved in the building and management of the bachelor’sandmaster’sprogrammes,thusapplying the principle of data triangulation, which enhances the internal reliability of the data and study (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Results The results are introduced per embedded unit. First, the bachelor’s programme in SBI is introduced, followed by the master’s programme in SBI. The courses introduced in Table 1 are discussed according to each element of experiential learning. Table 1 Experiential learning in the bachelor’s and master’s programmes in SBI at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Course name, amount of ECTS Brief course description Bachelor Essentials of Science, Business, and Innovation, 6 ECTS General introduction of natural science-driven innovation and the role of actors such as the technology entrepreneur. Team-based project of a self-defined ‘innovation X project’consisting of a natural science base and business application. Innovation Project Medicine, 6 ECTS Acquiring knowledge and insight into the drug discovery and development process of new medicines. The assignment involves working in a team comprising students from both science, business, and innovation and pharmaceutical sciences on the drug development trajectory for a predefined illness. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6 ECTS Basic knowledge about entrepreneurship by analysing cases on the opportunity-development process, and the role of resources and the environment. Interviewing an entrepreneur and reflecting on entrepreneurial competencies. Using theories and teacher guidance to develop, as a team, a selfdefined business opportunity. Innovation Project Energy, 6 ECTS Develop a self-defined science-based opportunity for an energy company. Work as a team to develop and evaluate competitive business ideas by talking to the innovation manager of an energy company and use company documents, pitching the idea to the innovation manager and delivering a business report. Innovation Project Health and Diagnostics, 6 ECTS Work as an entrepreneurial team in consultation with an early-stage science and tech-based entrepreneur to develop a business idea, and evaluate elements of the project context by developing science and business criteria and, finally, pitch the idea using a poster. Innovation Project Energy Transition, 6 ECTS Develop a business opportunity as a team starting with exploring a specific transition context for an alternative fuel and related production technologies. This is followed by conducting a long-term scenario planning assessment, finally leading to business opportunity assessment, which presents a business opportunity in relation to an economic, business, and innovation context. Bachelor’s Project, 24 ECTS Students conduct an independent research project within a company. The project includes determining a research question, company description, literature review, research method, empirical study relevant for the company setting, and discussion and conclusion. Master Science Project, 24 ECTS Methodological design and execution of an independent research project on R&D from a science, business, and innovation perspective. SBI Project and Master’s Thesis, 36 ECTS Students conduct an independent research project within a company, including defining the problem and value of the project context in relation to the relevant SBI elements, designing the project to reach both business and academically valid research results to contribute to solving the problem and create value, and executing the project through data acquisition and written and oral reporting of the results. Abbreviation Meaning: ECTS, European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System; SBI, Science, Business, and Innovation; R&D, Research and Development. M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 7 Bachelor’s programme in SBI Essentials of science, business, and innovation Essentials of Science, Business, and Innovation (ESBI) is the first course students take in the bachelor’s programme in SBI [1]. It offers an overview of the main theories and proceeds to apply them in the practical domain, thus introducing real-worldness. It focuses on developing an active learning attitude and collaboration competencies through the execution of group assignments [3]. For example, students can choose a case to study - at a rudimentary level - the extent to which a technology is commercially viable. Through a selfdefined team-based project, students are stimulated to define a problem and solution for a topic from a predefined list of topics [4]. Here, the element of ill-defined problems comes into play. The teams are mentored during five sessions by academic staff who provide immediate feedback on the intuitively designed business cases by connecting the idea with theories discussed during lectures, stimulating reflection-in-action [2]. Moreover, guest lectures are conducted to bring practice into the class, thereby enhancing real-worldness [5]. Although reflection is part of the course, there is no systematic approach to reflection in the form of a learning activity, and it therefore only takes place in an informal fashion [6]. Innovation project medicine The context of the course is provided by the development of a medicine for an illness such as COVID-19 or malaria, which is informed by real-world incidents. A unique feature is that the student team consists of both SBI and pharmaceutical science students [7]. Therefore, students have the opportunity to work with people from a different knowledge community [8]. Both types of students have followed similar mono-disciplinary science background courses; however, SBI students also have knowledge of and experience with business and innovation. This allows for a comprehensive process of developing a joint problem definition [12]. Together, they execute a team-based task [7]. During the project, coaching sessions are essential. They are oriented towards the execution of practical tasks, but also encourage reflection inand on-action. Because of the nature of the case, in some instances, it can be noted to contribute to transformative learning, whereby students become aware of the type of logic at play at a deeper, personal level. In addition, a lecturer-coach facilitates and guides interaction [11]. This coach plays a key role during the meetings by focusing on the task and ensures that all tasks have been completed and feedback has been incorporated [10]. Another example is the final coaching session, in which the coach makes sure that everybody follows a constructive approach to talking about peer feedback and that all individual students formulate experiencegrounded learning goals for the next project. After the final session, the students discuss their most important learning moments in a reflection report. Reflection is thus a central element in this course [9]. Entrepreneurship and innovation The course covers several topics such as the entrepreneurial mindset, the entrepreneur, resources and their development, and the influences of the context in which entrepreneurship takes place [15]. Students are also required to interview an entrepreneur of their choice, whereby the professional network of teachers is activated to guarantee input from the professional domain [12]. Such entrepreneurs serve as important role models for students and, in some cases, act as mentors [16]. When students share their interview experiences, they often remark that they acquired a different understanding of what it means to be an entrepreneur −which sensitises them to the ill-defined nature of the phenomenon ‘entrepreneurship’. A more practical perspective in the course involves students developing a Table 2 Experiential learning in management education. Aspects of experiential learning Facilitates experiential learning in management education Related didactical interventions in the literature Literature 1. Involving the real-world context in the classroom Real-world problems carry elements of uncertainty, pressure, moral judgements, and risk-situations managers handle in real life. Additionally, they offer contact with authentic work environments, allowing learners to acquire the ‘culture of practice’. Use of guest lectures Use of case-based work forms Use (on a programme level) of inputs from professional domains Carriger, 2015;Dehler & Welsh, 2014; Raelin, 2007,2009; Reynolds and Vince, 2007; Sch€ on, 1987; Scott, 2017. 2. Acknowledging ill-defined nature of real-world management problems, conceptualisation phase Real managerial problems are complex and unstructured; future managers need to work with challenges that require more than a straightforward application of theoretical models on ill-defined problems. Focus on development of research skills, especially conceptualisation Focus on importance of problem definition Translating an empirical situation to a conceptual problem Co-creation of problem definition amongst students (teams), teachers, and professionals Kilbane, Theroux et al., 2004; Gosling & Mintzberg 2006; Baaken et al., 2015; Boud & Solomon, 2001;Lave & Wenger, 1991;Raelin, 2007; Smith, 2005; Tan & Vicente, 2019. 3. Developing means to act upon the problem, execution phase Business solutions are not conceived neatly in the mind of managers but are the result of a process of adaptation. Therefore, it is not enough to be informed of potential solutions. Students need to execute ideas in real life to capture the complexity of management issues. Design of internships Design and use of project education Hands-on involvement in designing recommendations Hands-on involvement in implementing solutions Argyris & Sch€ on, 1992;Blaylock et al. 2009; Mintzberg, 2004; Raelin, 2007; Brook, Pedler & Burgoyne, 2012); Scott, 2017,Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018. 4. Reflection on the process outcomes and its meaning for the solution and eventually (personal) development Reflection supports the transformation of experience into learning. The literature distinguishes between reflection-inaction, or cognitive processes that take place amidst a complex activity, and reflection-on-action, or the process of stepping back from experience to review and draw lessons from it. Both are essential to learning. Formative feedback practices Reflective conversations, individually and in teams Competence development Development of a professional attitude Focus on transformative learning experiences and the aspect of ‘bildung’ of education through dedicated coaching and mentoring Grey 2004;Gosling & Mintzberg 2006; Ajjawi & Boud, 2018;Cajiao & Burke, 2016; Hibbert, 2012; Mintzberg, 2004; Moon, 2004; Nicol, 2010; Sadler, 2010; Sch€ on, 1987. M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 8 CRediT authorship contribution statement Marie Louise (M.L.) Blankesteijn: Writing −review & editing, Writing −original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Jorick (J.) Houtkamp: Writing −original draft, Data curation, Conceptualization. Bart (B.A.G.) Bossink: Writing −review & editing, Methodology. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Appendix: Data sources Course name, ECTS Data Source Source [#] Bachelor’s programme Essentials of Science, Business, and innovation 6 ECTS Course guides 1. Annual report bachelor’s programme SBI 2016−2021 2. Examination files 3. Interviews with teachers 4. Digital learning environment 5. Teaching materials, such as lecture slides. 6. Innovation Project Medicine, 6 ECTS Course guides 7. Examination files 8. Interviews with teachers 9. Digital learning environment 10. Teaching materials, such as lecture slides 11. Entrepreneurship and innovation, 6 ECTS Course guides 12. Examination files 13. Interviews with teachers 14. Digital learning environment 15. Teaching materials, such as lecture slides. 16. Innovation Project Energy, 6 ECTS Course guides 17. Examination files 18. Interviews with teachers 19. Teacher’s experience in redesign of innovation projects learning line 20. Teaching materials, such as lecture slides. 21. Innovation Project Health and Diagnostics, 6 ECTS Course guides 22. Examination files 23. Interviews with teachers 24. Teacher’s experience in redesign of innovation projects learning line 25. Digital learning environment 26. Teaching materials, such as lecture slides 27. Innovation Project Energy Transition, 6 ECTS Course guides 28. Examination files 29. Teacher’s experience in redesign of innovation projects learning line 30. Digital learning environment 31. Teaching materials, such as lecture slides 32. Bachelor’s Project, 24 ECTS Course guide SBI Project & Master thesis 33. File Senior Teaching Qualification of bachelor’s coordinator 34. Examination files 35. Course material such as lecture slides 36. First-hand experiences of the coordinators and supervisors 37. Interview with programme director 38. Workshop ‘How to organize thesis supervision as a team-effort 39. Master’s programme Science Project, 24 ECTS Course guide Science Project 40. File Senior Teaching Qualification of master’s coordinator 41. Annual reports master’s programme 2016−2021 42. Examination files 43. Digital learning environment on Canvas 44. Teaching materials such as lecture slides 45. SBI Master’s Project, 36 ECTS Course guide SBI Project & Master thesis 46. Examination files 47. Course material such as lecture slides 48. First-hand experiences of the coordinators and supervisors 49. Programme director 50. Abbreviation Meaning: B.Sc., Bachelor of Science; SBI, Science, Business, and Innovation; ECTS, European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 15 References Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. doi:10.1080/ 02602938.2018.1434128. Anderson, J. (2019). In search of reflection-in-action: An exploratory study of the interactive reflection of four experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102879. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2019.102879. Anon. Dealroom. (2023). The 2023 European Deep Tech Report. https://dealroom.co/ uploaded/2023/09/The-European-Deep-Tech-Report-2023.pdf Argyris, C., & Sch€ on, D. A. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Audretsch, D., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: Crossnational analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1247–1259. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9441-8. Audretsch, D. B. (2017). Entrepreneurship and universities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(1), 4–11. Baggen, Y., Lans, T., & Gulikers, J. (2022). Making entrepreneurship education available to all: Design principles for educational programs stimulating an entrepreneurial mindset. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 5(3), 347–374. doi:10.1177/ 2515127420988517. Barab, S. A., & Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science program: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454–467. doi:10.1002/sce.10083. Barr, S. H., Baker, T., Markham, S. K., & Kingon, A. I. (2009). Bridging the valley of death: Lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 370–388. doi:10.5465/ amle.8.3.zqr370. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Beard, C. M., & Wilson, J. P. (2006). Experiential learning: A best practice handbook for educators and trainers. Kogan Page Publishers. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools have lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104. Berglund, K., & Verduyn, K. (2018). Revitalizing entrepreneurship education (1st ed.). Routledge. Berkhout, G., Hartmann, D., & Trott, P. (2010). Connecting technological capabilities with market needs using a cyclic innovation model. R&D Management, 40(5), 474– 490. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00618.x. Blankesteijn, M., Bossink, B., & van der Sijde, P. (2021). Science-based entrepreneurship education as a means for university-industry technology transfer. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(2), 779–808. doi:10.1007/s11365019-00623-3. Blankesteijn, M., & Houtkamp, J. (2022). Digital tools and experiential learning in science-based entrepreneurship education. D. Hyams-Ssekasi & Yasin, N. (Eds.), Technology and entrepreneurship education D. Hyams-Ssekasi & Yasin, N. (Eds.). (1st ed.). (pp. 227−250). Palgrave MacMillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-84292-5_10. Blankesteijn, M., van der Sijde, P., & Sam, C. (2019). Entrepreneurial universities and knowledge circulation: Challenges to university-industry interaction. N. Caseiro & D. Santoa (Eds.), Smart specialization strategies and the role of entrepreneurial universities N. Caseiro & D. Santoa (Eds.). (1st ed.). (pp. 81−98). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6152-1. Blankesteijn, M. L., Sam, C., & Sijde, P. V. D. (2019). Understanding the governance of the engaged and entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century: Towards a new research and policy agenda. T. Kliewe, T. Kesting, C. Plewa, & T. Baaken (Eds.), Developing engaged and entrepreneurial universities T. Kliewe, T. Kesting, C. Plewa, & T. Baaken (Eds.). (pp. 43−53). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8130-0_3. Blaylock, B. K., McDaniel, J. L., Falk, C. F., Hollandsworth, R., & Kopf, J. M. (2009). A borrowed approach for a more effective business education. Journal of Management Education, 33(5), 577–595. doi:10.1177/1052562908327889. Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9399-6. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1987). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning D. Boud, R. Keogh & D. Walker (Eds.). (2nd ed.). (pp. 18−40). Routledge. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Routledge. Boud, D., & Solomon, N. (2001). Work-based learning: A new higher education. McGrawHill Education. Bridgman, T., McLaughlin, C., & Cummings, S. (2018). Overcoming the problem with solving business problems: Using theory differently to rejuvenate the case method for turbulent times. Journal of Management Education, 42(4), 441–460. doi:10.1177/1052562917754236. Brook, C., Pedler, M., & Burgoyne, J. (2012). Some debates and challenges in the literature on action learning: The state of the art since Revans. Human Resource Development International, 15(3), 269–282. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.687926. Cajiao, J., & Burke, M. J. (2016). How instructional methods influence skill development in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3), 508–524. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0354. Carriger, M. S. (2015). Problem-based learning and management development - Empirical and theoretical considerations. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(3), 249–259. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2015.07.003. Clarysse, B., Mosey, S., & Lambrecht, I. (2009). New trends in technology management education: A view from Europe. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (3), 427–443. doi:10.5465/amle.8.3.zqr427. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2. De Ciantis, S. M., & Kirton, M. (1996). A psychometric reexamination of Kolb’sexperiential learning cycle construct: A separation of level, style, and process. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 809–820. doi:10.1177/0013164496056005007. Dehler, G. E., & Welsh, M. A. (2014). Against spoon-feeding. For learning. Reflections on students’claims to knowledge. Journal of Management Education, 38(6), 875–893. doi:10.1177/105256291351143. Dhliwayo, S. (2008). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 50(4), 329–340. doi:10.1108/00400910810880560. Dollinger, M. J. (2008). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and resources (2nd ed.). Marsh Publications. Druckman, D., & Ebner, N. (2018). Discovery learning in management education: Design and case analysis. Journal of Management Education, 42(3), 347–374. doi:10.1177/1052562917720710. Farashahi, M., & Tajeddin, M. (2018). Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations. The International Journal of Management Education, 16(1), 131– 142. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2018.01.003. Farquhar, J., Michels, N., & Robson, J. (2020). Triangulation in industrial qualitative case study research: Widening the scope. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, 160– 170. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.001. Fenwick, T.J. (2001). Experiential Learning: A Theoretical Critique from Five Perspectives. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. https://files.eric.ed.gov/full text/ED454418.pdf Fielding, M. (1994). Valuing difference in teachers and learners: Building on Kolb’s learning styles to develop a language of teaching and learning. The Program Journal, 5(3), 393–417. doi:10.1080/0958517940050310. Frisk Redman, E., & Larson, K. (2011). Educating for sustainability: Competencies and practices for transformative action. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2. Garner, I. (2000). Problems and inconsistencies with Kolb’s learning styles. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 341–348. doi:10.1080/713663745. Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both matter. Management Learning, 37(4), 419–428. doi:10.1177/1350507606070214. Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business schools: The contribution of critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 178–186. doi:10.5465/amle.2004.13500519. H€ agg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2020). Towards a learning philosophy based on experience in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(2), 129–153. doi:10.1177/2515127420910679. Halberstadt, J., Timm, J. M., Kraus, S., & Gundolf, K. (2019). Skills and knowledge management in higher education: How service learning can contribute to social entrepreneurial competence development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23 (10), 1925–1948. doi:10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0744. Harms, R., & Schwery, M. (2020). Lean startup: Operationalizing lean startup capability and testing its performance implications. Journal of Small Business Management, 58 (1), 200–223. doi:10.1080/00472778.2019.1659677. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185–195. doi:10.1080/00221340008978967. Heller, R. F. (2022). The distributed university for sustainable higher education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-6506-6. Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education+ Training, 47(2), 98–111. doi:10.1108/00400910510586524. Hibbert, P. (2013). Approaching reflexivity through reflection: Issues for critical management education. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 803–827. doi:10.1177/1052562912467757. Hibbert, P., Coupland, C., & MacIntosh, R. (2010). Reflexivity: Recursion and relationality in organizational research processes. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(1), 47–62. doi:10.1108/ 17465641011042026. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687. Hyams-Ssekasi, D., & Taheri, F. (2022). Re-assessing entrepreneurship education and gamification as a learning process. D. Hyams-Ssekasi & Yasin, N. (Eds.), Technology and entrepreneurship education D. Hyams-Ssekasi & Yasin, N. (Eds.). (1st ed.). (pp. 3−23). Palgrave MacMillan. Jarvis, P. (1987). Meaningful and meaningless experience: Towards an analysis of learning from life. Adult Education Quarterly, 37(3), 164–172. doi:10.1177/ 0001848187037003004. Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 137–149. doi:10.5465/amle.2002.8509336. Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change - Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149–158. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004. Kolb, D. A. (2003). The process of experiential learning. P. Jarvis & Griffin, C. (Eds.), Adult and continuing education: Major themes in education P. Jarvis & Griffin, C. (Eds.). (pp. 159−180). Routledge. M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 16 Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2006). Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the multidisciplinary application of experiential learning theory in higher education. R. Sims & S. Sims (Eds.), Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education R. Sims & S. Sims (Eds.). (pp. 45−91). Nova Science. Lackeus, M., & Williams-Middleton, K. (2015). Venture creation programs: Bridging entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Education and Training, 57 (1), 48–73. doi:10.1108/ET-02-2013-0013. Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: Towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62,37–47. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.036. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Lisko, S. A., & O’dell, V. (2010). Integration of theory and practice: Experiential learning theory and nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 106–108. Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive flexibility: Testing experiential learning theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5–33. doi:10.1177/1350507602331001. Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Learning and Individual Differences, 23,44–52. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009. 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. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006. McCarthy, M. (2016). Experiential learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 14(3), 91–100. doi:10.19030/jber.v14i3.9749. McClellan, R., & Hyle, A. E. (2012). Experiential learning: Dissolving classroom and research borders. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(1), 238–252. Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge. Mujuru, N. M., Hyams-Ssekasi, D., & Mushunje, A. (2022). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education for sustainable agricultural development: A bibliometric analysis. D. Hyams-Ssekasi & F. Agboma (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and change: Understanding entrepreneurialism as a driver of transformation D. Hyams-Ssekasi & F. Agboma (Eds.). (pp. 165−188). Springer. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518. Olalla, B. C., & Merino, A. (2019). Competences for sustainability in undergraduate business studies: A content analysis of value-based course syllabi in Spanish universities. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 239–253. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2019.02.006. Ord, J., & Leather, M. (2011). The substance beneath the labels of experiential learning: The importance of John Dewey for outdoor educators. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 15(2), 13–23. Perusso, A., & Baaken, T. (2020). Assessing the authenticity of cases, internships and problem-based learning as managerial learning experiences: Concepts, methods and lessons for practice. The International Journal of Management Education, 18,(3) 100425. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100425. Perusso, A., Blankesteijn, M., & Leal, R. (2020). The contribution of reflective learning to experiential learning in business education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 1001–1015. doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1705963. Perusso, A., van der Sijde, P., Leal, R., & Blankesteijn, M. (2021). The effectiveness and impact of action learning on business graduates’professional practice. Journal of Management Education, 45(2), 177–205. doi:10.1177/1052562920940374. Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424. doi:10.1111/j.15406520.2005.00091.x. Pryor, C. (2016). The principles and practices of delivering experiential entrepreneurship education to mega-classes. M.H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy - 2016 M.H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.). (pp. 226 −245). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781784719166.00018. Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 495–519. doi:10.5465/amle.2007.27694950. Raelin, J. A. (2009). The practice turn-away: Forty years of spoon-feeding in management education. Management Learning, 40(4), 401–410. doi:10.1177/1350507609335850. Retra, K., van Hoorn, P., van Gogh, A. T. M., Maas, J. N., Rozendal, I., Dekker, J. P., et al. (2016). Educating the science - business professional. Industry & Higher Education, 30(4), 302–309. doi:10.1177/0950422216662377. Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29(2), 183–200. doi:10.1177/1350507698292004. Robotham, D. (1995). Self-directed learning: The ultimate learning style? Journal of European Industrial Training. doi:10.1108/03090599510092918. Rosenthal, D. W. (2016). The art of case teaching. M.H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy - 2016 M.H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.). (pp. 148−160). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781784719166.00018. Sachau, D. A., & Naas, P. A. (2010). The consulting challenge: A case competition. Journal of Management Education, 34(4), 605–631. doi:10.1177/1052562909358556. Sadler, D. R (2014). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. S. Hatzipanagos & R. Rochon (Eds.), Approaches to assessment that enhance learning in higher education S. Hatzipanagos & R. Rochon (Eds.). (pp. 55 −70). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315872322. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge. Schindehutte, M., & Morris, M. H. (2016). The experiential learning portfolio and entrepreneurship education. M.H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and pedagogy - 2016 M.H. Morris & E. Liguori (Eds.). (pp. 161−175). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781784719166.00015. Sch€ on, D. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315237473. Scott, K. S. (2017). An integrative framework for problem-based learning and action learning: Promoting evidence-based design and evaluation in leadership development. Human Resource Development Review, 16(1), 3–34. doi:10.1177/1534484317693090. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/14676370810842193. Smith, C. S., Morris, M., Francovich, C., Hill, W., & Gieselman, J. (2004). A qualitative study of resident learning in ambulatory clinic. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9(2), 93–105. doi:10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027435.37893.47. Spence, L. D. (2001). The case against teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(6), 10–19. doi:10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027435.37893.47. Tan, T. A. G., & Vicente, A. J. (2019). An innovative experiential and collaborative learning approach to an undergraduate marketing management course: A case of the Philippines. The International Journal of Management Education, 17,(3) 100309. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100309. Theroux, J. M. (2009). Real-time case method: Analysis of a second implementation. Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 367–373. doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.6.367-373. Tomkins, L., & Ulus, E. (2016). ‘Oh, was that “experiential learning”?!’Spaces, synergies and surprises with Kolb’s learning cycle. Management Learning, 47(2), 158–178. doi:10.1177/1350507615587451. Tsang, E. W. (2014). Generalizing from research findings: The merits of case studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 369–383. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12024. Van Ewijk, A. R., Oikkonen, E., & Belghiti-Mahut, S. (2020). Linking methods to outcomes: A multi-course mixed-method study of the effects of active and passive pedagogy on entrepreneurial intentions. The International Journal of Management Education, 18,(3) 100420. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100420. Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304–319. doi:10.1177/105256299802200304. Wals, A. E., & Jickling, B. (2002). Sustainability”in higher education: From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/14676370210434688. Yardley, S., Teunissen, P. W., & Dornan, T. (2012). Experiential learning: Transforming theory into practice. Medical Teacher, 34(2), 161–164. doi:10.3109/ 0142159X.2012.643264. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage. M.L.(.L.). Blankesteijn, J.(.). Houtkamp and B.(.A.G.). Bossink Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100544 17