Entrepreneurship Theory And Practice By Raj Shankar Pdf Download
Tommye Hope
Raj Krishnan Shankar is an associate professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at Great Lakes Institute of Management. Prior to joining Great Lakes, Raj was an associate professor of entrepreneurship at Nord University, Norway. He joined the academic world after over a decade of consulting and entrepreneurship experience. Raj completed his postdoctoral fellowship at Nord University after receiving his doctorate from Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India. He holds a B.E in computer science from Madras University and an MBA in finance from Symbiosis Institute of International Business. Prior to joining the doctoral program, Raj worked as a consultant with Deloitte Touch Tohmatsu and i-flex Consulting (now Oracle). His entrepreneurial endeavor (ichiban Consultants) involved helping emerging enterprises achieve scale.
Raj is a globally recognized entrepreneurship scholar with research interests spanning corporate entrepreneurship, sustainability, and organization theory. Apart from studying how new ventures and teams come into being, Raj is a keen observer of corporate entrepreneurial behavior (venturing, strategic renewal). In recent times, he has been exploring ways in which organizations embrace ESG to become sustainable, how organizations learn from startups, and how organizations develop foresight. Raj has published in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Management Studies, Small Business Economics, Technovation, Simulation & Gaming, Journal of Management Inquiry, and Journal of Entrepreneurship. He has authored several books, book chapters, and cases.
entrepreneurship theory and practice by raj shankar pdf download
Download Zip https://mciun.com/2yMxeS
A national award-winning entrepreneurship educator, Raj Shankar is a highly sought-after teacher, mentor, and advisor. He was empaneled as a national entrepreneurship expert by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and has been on global missions. Raj has designed and delivered management development programs for CxO level executives and teaches courses on entrepreneurship across Asia, Americas, and Europe. He is a highly desired educator at global faculty development programs. Raj teaches strategic entrepreneurship courses to MBA students and corporate executives, and qualitative research methods to PhD scholars.
Raj is an active member of the Academy of Management (AoM). Raj serves as an editorial review board (ERB) member of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Journal; and reviews for top entrepreneurship (JBV) and management (AMR) journals. He sits on academic and PhD committees across Universities in India, Europe, and the US.
Raj regularly presents papers annually at the Academy of Management (AOM), and Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC). He has also presented papers at Biennial Conferences on Entrepreneurship, PAN IIM World Management Conference, and INDAM Conferences.
School districts are experiencing increasing economic, racial, ethnic, linguistic, gender and sexuality, cultural diversity across the United States and globally. With increasing diversity and persistent social inequities widening (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019; U.S. Census Data, 2018), educational leaders face immense challenges and must actively work to build an equitable, healthy school climate. Educational leaders are critical for ensuring positive student outcomes and success, but often report feeling inadequately prepared for current challenges (Coalition for Teacher Equality, 2016; Jordan, 2012; Miller, 2013; Mitani, 2018; Papa, 2007). Unfortunately, growing challenges are contributing to high school administrator turnover rates and shortages (Gates et al., 2006; Jacob et al., 2015; Mordechay & Orfield, 2017) as well as perpetuating social inequities among preK-12 students instead of dismantling them (Beckett, 2018; Fuller, 2012; Manna, 2015; Rangel, 2018; Shankar-Brown, 2015). A research study by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI) reveals that public schools with higher percentages of low-income students and students of color are more likely to experience administrative and teacher turnover, which compounds equity issues affecting already vulnerable students (Levin and Bradley, 2019).
This book provides educational leaders with a deeper understanding of equity-focused and inclusive leadership practices, while offering intersectional views on social inequalities and stark reminders of the work still ahead. Connecting theory to practice, this book offers needed encouragement and inspiration to both in-service and practicing educational leaders. Rooted in social justice and weaving together diverse voices, this edited volume systematically examines equity-focused PreK-12 and higher education leadership practices. Shankar-Brown (Ed.) calls on educational leaders to collectively rise and mindfully work together to bend the arc toward justice.
There is a growing focus on reflective practices in entrepreneurship education (Shankar and Gopalakrishnan, 2022) and teaching students how to develop knowledge from the experiences and actions of learning journeys. Research in entrepreneurship education emphasises the importance of experience and action-based learning (Hgg and Kurczewska, 2016). Yet, structured reflection is equally crucial as action in the learning process. However, there is a need for deeper theoretical understanding concerning the role of reflexivity not only in entrepreneurship education (Shankar & Gopalakrishnan, 2022) but also in the entrepreneurial learning process (Cope 2003). Such insights are vital for crafting educational programs that promote lifelong learning.
The action components are drawn from the effectuation approach to entrepreneurship developed by Saraswathi (2001, 2003) and the conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as a process of enactment (Weick 1979) where the entrepreneur acts as-if the future is already in the present (Gartner et al. 1992). The reflective components are inspired by critical reflection (Mezirow, 1990).
b) Reflective skills. Students had a good level of engagement with the self-reflection logs. The Reflective Portfolio assessment included analytical and critical reflections rather than descriptive accounts.
This innovative approach created opportunities for and integrated moments of critical reflection to promote metacognitive skills (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010), enhance self-awareness (Dewey, 1933), foster a growth mindset (Dweck, 2015), and encourage critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Mezirow, 1990). The development of these skills enhances the capacity of the student-entrepreneur to adapt and learn from experience and promotes lifelong learning.
After a successful career as a management consultant for tech start-ups and large firms, Corinna Galliano completed a PhD at the University of Sydney Business School in the discipline of Strategy, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 2019. Using Paradox Theory, Corinna's research sheds insights on managing the competing demands of leading and working in highly dynamic contexts, including start-ups, innovation teams and large organisations undergoing change and transformation.
Incubation research overlooks the artful social practices required to sustain a fruitful incubation context. To maintain a balance between entrepreneurial autonomy and guided entrepreneurship programs, entrepreneurs and incubator management mutually engage in four practices: onboarding, gathering, lunching, and feedbacking. Onboarding fosters a shared understanding of norms, values, and practicalities of participation. Gathering facilitates collective decision-making. Lunching maintains a desirable level of trust. Feedbacking enables the co-creation of ideas and maintains reciprocity. Our findings deepen theory on the interplay between entrepreneurship and context and contribute to research and practice on incubation processes.
In the following section, we analyze the ESO literature to determine how elements of context and practice have been theorized by scholars. We then narrow our focus to theories that conceptualize ESOs as dynamic entrepreneurial contexts before outlining a practice theory approach to context that we will use to ground our ethnographic analysis of a social purpose incubator.
Entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs) are now well-established contexts of entrepreneurship. They encompass a range of intervention mechanisms that include incubators, science parks, accelerators, maker spaces, and co-working spaces (Bergman & McMullen, 2021), and provide services such as venture hosting, mentoring, business education, and access to capital (Woolley & MacGregor, 2021). Association with a high-status ESO can serve as an important form of credentialization for young firms (Yu, 2020), helping them overcome many of the liabilities of newness associated with nascent venturing. While the various forms of ESOs share overlapping aims, there is some differentiation in how these aims are configured and operationalized, which may reflect the regional or industry context in which the ESO operates (e.g., Amezcua et al., 2020; Sansone et al., 2020).
Mirroring the growth of ESOs, a now substantial body of literature uses diverse theoretical and empirical lenses to examine various research questions. A foundational strand of research considers questions relating to what ESOs are (Grimaldi & Grandi, 2005), what functions they provide within an entrepreneurial ecosystem (van Rijnsoever, 2020), what activities they undertake (Baraldi & Ingemansson Havenvid, 2016; Hackett & Dilts, 2004), and what strategies they should adopt to support entrepreneurs (Tang et al., 2021). A second body of literature has sought to measure the impact of ESOs, both on individual entrepreneurial firms (Woolley & MacGregor, 2021) and on broader economic growth (Wang et al., 2020). Far from being an unqualified success, scholars working in this area find their efficacy to be mixed (Lukeš et al., 2019), with some observing that entrepreneurs participating in an incubator and/or accelerator program may experience lower chances of venture survival than those not supported by such programs (Schwartz, 2013). A third focus of ESO literature examines the role of networks (van Rijnsoever, 2020), social capital (Hughes et al., 2007), and entrepreneurial learning (Sullivan et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021), with researchers emphasizing the importance of interaction and trust in effective entrepreneurial incubation. And finally, a small but expanding group of scholars is attempting to move analysis from the generalized components or strategies of ESOs towards more sociological and activity focused explanations (e.g., Shankar & Clausen, 2020).
b1e95dc632