The creation of entrepreneurial engineers: a re-evaluation of the Standish-Kuon and Rice (2002) typology and the emergence of the entrepreneurial engineering education (EEE) typology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background - World economies are demanding a new type of engineer—anentrepreneurial engineer—who possesses a multidisciplinary set of technical andentrepreneurial competencies. These new engineers are essential to the fostering ofentrepreneurship, innovation, and technological enhancement within an economy.Given the importance of having entrepreneurial engineers, it is necessary for tertiarylevelacademic institutions to prepare their engineering students to undertake theseroles. This is being done by offering entrepreneurship education to engineeringstudents.Limited research is available as to how academic institutions structureentrepreneurship initiatives for engineering students. The Standish-Kuon and Rice(2002) study was the only available research that showed the approaches taken bythe first academic institutions in the United States to educate engineeringundergraduates about entrepreneurship. The findings from this study also resulted inthe emergence of a typology which presented the three models to whichentrepreneurship initiatives could be categorized into, and ultimately the three modelsthat institutions could follow to educate their engineering students aboutentrepreneurship.In recognition of the importance of entrepreneurial engineers coupled with the needfor developing a greater understanding of entrepreneurship education for engineeringstudents, it has become necessary to review the types of initiatives used to educateengineering students about entrepreneurship. Doing this will help to determine therelevance of the Standish-Kuon and Rice (2002) typology regarding present-dayinitiatives. It is important to know whether this typology still represents the initiativesoffered at U.S. institutions and whether or not this typology can be applied in a nonU.S.context to show how engineering students in other countries are educated aboutentrepreneurship.Purpose - The purpose of this research was to acquire information about howtertiary-level academic institutions in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States are educating engineering undergraduates aboutentrepreneurship. The overall objective was to determine whether the Standish-Kuonand Rice (2002) typology was still representative of entrepreneurship initiatives forengineering undergraduates, or if the typology had to be updated.Design/Method - This research used a desktop review approach conducted in twophases. In the first phase, the data was collected from entrepreneurship initiativedescriptions on the websites of tertiary-level academic institutions in the UnitedStates. In the second phase, the data was collected from entrepreneurship initiativedescriptions on the websites of institutions in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, andthe United Kingdom. A content analysis was conducted, and the distinguishingcriteria identified in the Standish-Kuon and Rice (2002) typology were used tocategorize the entrepreneurship initiatives reviewed.Findings - The findings showed that a total of five models were used to categorizeentrepreneurship initiatives for engineering undergraduates. This demonstrates thatacademic institutions in the five countries use one (or in some cases more) of the fivemodels to educate engineering undergraduates about entrepreneurship. The presenceof the five models showed that the Standish-Kuon and Rice (2002) typology requiredupdating to reflect present-day initiatives for engineering undergraduates. Thesefindings, as a result, laid the foundation for the emergence of a new typology, whichwas subsequently entitled the Entrepreneurial Engineering Education, or EEE,typology.Conclusion - The Standish-Kuon and Rice (2002) typology, while still valuable,requires updates to represent the evolving educational needs of the engineering fieldand entrepreneurship education’s place in engineering. The need for extension hasresulted in a new typology, the EEE typology, which could ultimately be used toconduct future research that will enhance the field of entrepreneurial engineering andgain insight into entrepreneurial engineering education. Areas of interest for futureresearch are also discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».