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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".