Academic Entrepreneurship: Creating an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

This chapter examines the key characteristics of success of the university-wide entrepreneurial ecosystem at Syracuse University. From 2007 to 2012, Syracuse University developed an academic signature in entrepreneurship, innovation, and community engagement resulting from 165 programs that linked the campus and the community. Nine critical factors of success for individual programs were observed. This chapter provides recommendations for establishing an experientially focused university-wide entrepreneurship education program and suggestions on mistakes to avoid.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial ecosystem; university–community relationship; entrepreneurship programs

THE GROWTH OF THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM

The development of Syracuse University’s entrepreneurial ecosystem reaches back to its foundation with an emphasis on professional degrees. Students in professional majors are more likely to be self-employed, working as contractors or starting new ventures. The College of Visual and Performing Arts (founded 1873) includes majors in interior design, fashion, industrial design, illustration, ceramics, metalsmithing, illustration, and film. The School of Architecture (1873), College of Law (1895), School of Information Studies (1896), College of Engineering and Computer Science (1901), School of Education (1906), and College of Sports and Human Dynamics (1918) provide professional programs whose graduates frequently start businesses. The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs (1924) promoted social entrepreneurship and nongovernment organization and nonprofit startups since its inception.

In the 1980s, Doug Mellinger, then a Syracuse University undergraduate student, created a self-designed major in entrepreneurship, reaching into courses in business, psychology, economics, and communications. He subsequently founded the Association of Collegiate Entrepreneurs and several ventures including the PRT Group. In 1990, sensing the rising student interest in entrepreneurship, the Whitman School of Management committed to entrepreneurship as a core strategy and subsequently developed courses, a major, and the undergraduate and graduate business capstone courses which require students to work in teams to develop and present a business plan. Growth of courses and enrollments in entrepreneurship in the 1990s and early 2000s was the result of this emphasis by the business school.

Separate from the academic initiatives by the business school, the College of Law and the College of Engineering at Syracuse University started programs focused on product innovation and venture formation. In 1989, the Center for Advanced Systems and Engineering was designated a New York State Center for Advanced Technology, enabling university faculty, principally in the College of Engineering, to incubate technology companies on campus. In 1990, the College of Law at Syracuse University developed the Technology Commercialization Law Program for students across campus interested in intellectual property law, innovation, and entrepreneurship. This program, created and described by Hagelin (2011), grew into the New York State Science and Technology Law Center which oversaw technology commercialization graduate curriculum at universities throughout New York.

In 2007, the Enitiative program was founded consequent of Syracuse University becoming a Kauffman Campus. Cantor and Kingma (2013) describe the impetus for the Syracuse program. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation awarded Syracuse University $3 million to develop a university-wide entrepreneurship program. With funding from the Kauffman Foundation, Syracuse University was able to dramatically expand its commitment to entrepreneurship education, focusing on creating experiential programs that linked the campus to the community and building a university-wide ecosystem. The $3 million Kauffman grant also acted as leverage to raise over $30 million for programs (Table 1).

Table 1. Important Dates in Syracuse Entrepreneurship.

1873	College of Visual and Performing Arts, College of Architecture (first Syracuse University professional schools)
1989	Center for Advanced Systems in Engineering (incubator) affiliated with College of Engineering and Computer Science
1990	Technology Commercialization Law Program, College of Law
1996	Undergraduate major in entrepreneurship, Whitman School of Management
1997	Falcone Center for Entrepreneurship, Whitman
2002	Center of Excellence in Environmental Systems (funding for green innovation)
2003	Entrepreneurship and Emerging Enterprises, Whitman New York State Science and Technology Law Center, College of Law
2004	Syracuse Technology Garden (community incubator)
2006	South Side Innovation Center (community incubator)
2007	Kauffman Campus Initiative, Enitiative (university-wide, experiential focused entrepreneurship) Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities Near West side Initiative (fostering business development) Connective Corridor (fostering arts and cultural development) Bandier Program in Music Industry
2009	Raymond von Dran Innovation and Disruptive Entrepreneurship Accelerator (student venture curriculum, seed funding, and incubator)
2011	Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship, Newhouse School of Public Communications
2012	Janklow Arts Leadership Program, College of Arts & Sciences

Enitiative led to a second surge in entrepreneurship courses and enrollments. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of courses in entrepreneurship grew from 25 to 64. An additional 164 faculty infused one or more modules on entrepreneurship into an existing course. Enrollments in entrepreneurship courses increased from 1,826 to 7,722 students a year. During 2011–2012, students from 150 of the 200 academic majors at Syracuse University enrolled in at least one course in entrepreneurship (Table 2).

Table 2. e-Growth.

Every school and college at Syracuse University developed signature initiatives in entrepreneurship focused on community engagement that provided experiential opportunities for students. Students in the School of Architecture studied economic development on the Near West Side of Syracuse. Students in the School of Education worked on new ventures in education. Students in the Newhouse School of Public Communications started social media ventures.

Faculty in the College of Visual and Performing Arts infused entrepreneurship modules into courses in design, film, and music. Faculty in design started a collaborative working space for students to develop new products and ventures. Students in design started new ventures selling clothes and accessories designed by fellow students. Students in music started a record label while students in film ran the Syracuse International Film Festival.

In partnership with a local engineering firm, faculty in the College of Engineering and Computer Science developed a specialized version of the popular Startup Weekend event. During this weekend, professional engineers would work with teams of engineering students developing solutions and ventures to address current industry problems.

Faculty in the School of Information Studies, College of Visual and Performing Arts, and the Whitman School of Management developed courses, funding, and an incubator focused on supporting student startups. The Raymond von Dran Innovation and Disruptive Entrepreneurship Accelerator (RvD IDEA) was created from a partnership between Syracuse University and a community incubator, The Syracuse Technology Garden. The RvD IDEA catalyzed growth in student ventures from a handful of students that informally connected with faculty to a powerhouse of student entrepreneurs creating 100 new ventures a year. Students were provided space, mentorship, funding, as well as coursework that fit into their curriculum regardless of their major. Students created events such as Entrepalooza and Emerging Talk, as well as the RvD IDEA Connectors student group supporting venture owners. In 2013, The RvD IDEA funding competition attracted 162 student venture applications for $230,000 in seed funding.

Programs in the Whitman School of Management also become more experientially focused. Haynie and Shaheen (2011) discuss the formation of the very successful Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities (EBV). Shaheen (2011) presents the Startup New York program for assisting startups of community members with disabilities or from impoverished neighborhoods. Whitman students in courses in social entrepreneurship assisted those starting ventures in the EBV and Startup NY programs (Table 3).

Table 3. Affiliated Signature Initiatives.

School of Architecture	UPSTATE: A Center for Design, Research, and Real Estate
College of Arts and Sciences	Janklow Program in Arts Leadership Syracuse Biomaterials Institute
School of Education	Museum of Young Art
L. C Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science	Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Innovation Center for Advanced Systems and Engineering Syracuse Startup Weekend
David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics	Sports Management Genesis Health Project
School of Information Studies	Raymond von Dran Innovation and Disruptive Entrepreneurship Accelerator (campus program for student startups that includes courses, funding, incubator, and a student group) Spring Break in Silicon Valley program Global Enterprise Technology program
College of Law	New York State Science and Technology Law Center Center for Property, Citizenship, and Social Entrepreneurism Community Development Law Clinic (with emphasis on startups)
Martin J. Whitman School of Management	Department of Entrepreneurship and Emerging Enterprises Falcone Center for Entrepreneurship South Side Innovation Center WISE Women’s Business Center Institute for Veterans and Military Families Student Entrepreneurship Club, Enactus, and Family Business Club Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Learning Community
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs	Public Affairs programs (specializations in nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship)
S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications	Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship
College of Visual and Performing Arts	COLAB: A Laboratory for Innovation and Serious Play Syracuse International Film Festival Bandier Program in Recording and Allied Entertainment Industries Center for Live Music in the 21st century

KEY FACTORS FOR SUCCESS

The foundation of entrepreneurship at Syracuse University included commitments to professional education, entrepreneurship as core strategy in the business school, and a vision of the university as an anchor institution and economic driver in Central New York. Despite this strong foundation, university faculty can suffer from inertia, a disinterest in new programs or initiatives. Funding from the Kauffman Foundation was critical in providing faculty with the financial support needed to ignite the campus interest in university-wide experiential entrepreneurship education.

While the funding and the foundational elements were important to develop an entrepreneurial ecosystem, some faculty succeeded in starting new courses and programs while others failed. What were the differences between programs that were successful and those that failed? Nine key factors of success were important components in defining successful programs.

1. Investment in faculty champions.

The Syracuse University case affirms what Streeter, Jaquette, and Hovis (2002) and Rice, Fetters, and Greene (2010) have shown: that faculty champions for programs are a key ingredient to successful university-wide entrepreneurial ecosystems. Faculty champions build programs. At Syracuse this is proven over and over again by successful programs that have flourished under the leadership of individual faculty.

The Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Innovation supports faculty, community, and student entrepreneurs and innovators in green industries. While many faculty and staff have helped build this $100 million program, it was the vision of a single faculty member and former dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science that made it happen. There is a similar story for the New York State Science and Technology Law Center, Startup New York, and other programs in the Syracuse University portfolio of entrepreneurial initiatives. In each case, an individual faculty member took it upon himself to oversee and develop a successful program.

Committees can manage programs, but committees do not build programs. Committee paralysis has afflicted more than one program leading to its demise. For example, one master’s program in entrepreneurship at Syracuse has suffered for years from management by committee, leading to a stagnant program with few students. Well-intentioned and committed staff can help with the success of a program, but without a faculty champion these programs typically are not successful. More than one program in community engagement that was turned over to staff leadership saw a decline in participation and university funding.Worse than committees or staff ownership of programs, great ideas by university administrators that force faculty participation typically have disastrous consequences. University administrators may command resources that can, temporarily, encourage faculty and student participation but this engagement is short-lived and wanes when the resources decline.

2. Creating value for students.

The core value-generation proposition for any university is to provide a quality education for students. University programs must always ask themselves, “What value are we providing for students?” Well-intentioned programs that help community entrepreneurship and economic development but do not involve students should be avoided.

Placing students at the center of experiential entrepreneurship based programs can have amazing results. Increased attention and support of student clubs from 2007 to 2012 led to resurgence of the Syracuse Entrepreneurship Club and its growth from 8 to 392 students; the reopening of the Creativity, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation Learning Community for 40 freshman students; and the creation of the RvD IDEA Connectors student group focused on students starting new ventures. With small amounts of seed funding, students started and organized new events including Entrepalooza, Emerging Talk, and Idea Jams to bring together other students interested in entrepreneurship. A central office with an open door for students interested in new programs is crucial to a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Community-based programs that involve students have a dynamism and vibrancy. The RvD IDEA program was started in collaboration with the Syracuse Technology Garden to enable student ventures to be resident in a community technology-based incubator. The presence of students to this incubator added a dimension of youth and energy that did not previously exist, increasing the value of the Tech Garden facility to the “adult” entrepreneurs by providing access to student programmers, interns, and additional tech-based workshops.

Programs without strong and direct connections to students can survive if there is a financial backer, but at a university, the core mission is not being satisfied if it is not involving students. Eventually, university programs that do not engage students will close.

3. Partnerships involving experiential education must involve the community. Programs should be done with the community, not to the community.

Successful experiential programs have engaged community partners and provide value to the community. These partnerships come from working with community groups, as peers, not serving community groups or worse, advising community members on what should be done. Partnerships come from joint programs where citizens and university faculty share the development, responsibility, accolades, and criticisms of a program.

The Startup Weekend partnership between the College of Engineering and Computer Science and an engineering firm located in Syracuse was successful because it provided a win–win–win opportunity for the engineering firm, the College, and its students. Engineers presented current challenges their firm was facing and worked in groups with students in the compressed, 72-hour, Startup Weekend format to find solutions.

Likewise, Syracuse and leading community members formed a separate 501(c)3 nonprofit organization to oversee The Near West Side Initiative, which provides economic development for this impoverished Syracuse neighborhood and experiential opportunities for students in architecture and the arts. Students worked with community members to design homes, playgrounds, and community centers. Funding from New York State was directed to this separate nonprofit organization for economic development.

Unsuccessful community engagement programs typically have disenfranchised community leaders who did not feel like partners in the process. One such initiative provided entrepreneurship education for students in a food and nutrition program, but failed to collaborate with community partners on the efficacy of the program to the community. Students would advise community members on healthy cooking, nutrition, and lifestyles, but community members were disinterested in having this program provided to them when they were not engaged in its creation from the start. Ultimately, a community-based program developed these services in partnership with a grocery store but without the involvement of the University.

4. Plan for sustainability of financial and human resources.

Without financial sustainability a program will die. Without faculty sustainability a program will die. Not building sustainability into the program results in crisis management as the bottom drops out on funding or a faculty member leaves or dies, leaving program staff bitter and disengaged.

Financial sustainability typically comes from having students enrolled in courses, leading to tuition revenue providing the funding to continue the program. The Janklow Arts Leadership program was founded to provide an entrepreneurship education for students looking to lead art galleries, museums, or other nonprofit ventures. Funding was provided to research this program and develop a strong experiential-based curriculum. Its financial success is the result of students entering the program.

The Kauffman Entrepreneurship Engagement Fellows (KEEF) program provides tuition scholarships for one-year of graduate study to students graduating from a Syracuse undergraduate program and willing to open a venture in Central New York. Academic deans agree to provide students tuition based on “excess-capacity” in their graduate programs. Using excess classroom capacity, the program is financially sustainable.

The Janklow program, KEEF, and other programs funded by Enitiative were required to provide financial and personnel sustainability plans to receive seed grants. Faculty starting these programs had to develop business plans, including performance metrics, for the long-term sustainability of the initiative.

5. Vibrant programs have strong teams supporting them.

Solo academic entrepreneurs can be successful, but cannot grow their programs. The team requires committed individuals and a culture of support from faculty, staff, students, and community members. The programs’ growth and long-term success frequently require the faculty champion to lead a team of committed colleagues. The faculty champion must be adaptive, willing to listen, and provide the motivation for the program to succeed and grow.

The WISE Women’s Business Center and Symposium started in 2007 as a vision of a faculty entrepreneur in partnership with community leaders, with funding from the Small Business Administration and other sources. The growth of this center and its sustainability has come from hiring the right staff to lead it, an active Board of Directors, and its collaborative efforts with the community, faculty, and students.

Likewise, the South Side Innovation Center (SSIC) was created to help entrepreneurial community members in an economically disadvantaged neighborhood on the South Side of Syracuse. Unfortunately, ineffective leadership led to the disenfranchisement of community entrepreneurs, disinterest among faculty and students to participate, and a need to replace and reinvent the program. The right staff team and engagement with the community, faculty, and students have helped this program rebound.

A faculty champion plus funding can result in short-term program success. Unfortunately, faculty are typically not experienced in developing, managing, and leading teams to grow programs. Having a central resource for faculty to support their program growth, assist with seeking program funding, provide marketing and public relations, and help with human resources and budget management can be valuable for programs to grow.

6. Supportive leadership.

Successful programs are built by academic champions, continue with financial planning, and grow with the support of university leadership. University leaders can create an entrepreneurial or entrepreneur-friendly campus culture and an over-arching vision for the disparate entrepreneurship programs and departments. University leaders can also provide their support for grants from foundations or partnerships with industry to fund new programs.

This leadership led to innovative partnerships between Syracuse University and JP Morgan Chase, Welch Allyn, and IBM. The Syracuse University–JP Morgan Chase partnership developed an innovative curriculum in Global Enterprise Technologies that included “innovation internships” which challenged student interns to think as corporate intrapreneurs and develop new innovations in business processes. JP Morgan Chase provided $30 million in funding for this partnership. More importantly, JP Morgan Chase executives participated in the development of curriculum, course lectures, and internship oversight. The Syracuse University–Welch Allyn partnership created Blue Highway, Inc., which provided research and development in the medical device industry by partnering with faculty researchers.

Major corporations are unlikely to partner with individual faculty members. Partnerships with significant funding require university leadership. University leadership sets the vision for multimillion dollar programs, while for each partnership there were faculty champions able and willing to provide on-the-ground engagement with the university partner.

University leadership must also promote a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. Provosts, deans, and other administrators must not only find ways to lower barriers for faculty and student entrepreneurs but also encourage innovation and collaboration.

7. Build an ecosystem, not a dictatorship.

From 2007 to 2012, a portfolio of 165 programs in entrepreneurship and community engagement at Syracuse University were supported by the Office of the Associate Provost for Entrepreneurship and Innovation. The Associate Provost’s office sought and provided funding, cleared administrative barriers, and served as the university touch-point for all programs. By design, the Office of the Associate Provost supported or invested in but did not typically oversee or directly manage these programs. As a result, individual program managers were free to succeed or fail by directly and completely controlling their programs. Program directors were also responsible for acquiring funding for their programs, after initial seed investments were made.

At Syracuse University, program directors felt enfranchised or a sense of ownership of their initiatives. This strategy provided empowerment and accountability to individuals, rather than making them feel like employees who were managing, perhaps only temporarily, university initiatives. This results in greater personal investment of program directors in their initiatives.

At times, disagreements arose that endangered the management of an individual program. On more than one occasion, a faculty member or program director would question the management of a different program. As with the RvD IDEA program supporting student startups, one faculty member commented, “I have a large stack of research papers showing why it is a bad idea to support student ventures. This program should be discontinued.” The Office of the Associate Provost, at times, had to intervene to prevent obstructionist faculty from interfering.

This produced a laissez-faire approach to entrepreneurship education and venture support on campus. The inherent danger of this approach is that unqualified faculty members teach entrepreneurship courses or oversee programs. To address this, the faculty of the entrepreneurship department in the Whitman School of Management provided annual entrepreneurship education workshops to insure a quality standard for other faculty teaching. In addition, faculty members with programs that showed potential but were faltering were sometimes provided additional support or removed from their projects.

8. Just say YES.

Entrepreneurship is a ubiquitous term on many university campuses. This comes from an intentional strategy of letting faculty start projects, courses, centers, and programs that appeal to students, faculty, and community members and empowering them to start ventures.

The strategy of Enitiative was to give approval to programs that sought to start a new initiative regardless of whether it fit the traditional definition of entrepreneurship. Alumni entrepreneurs would review faculty proposals for funding, and while some projects were not given seed funding, no faculty program was ever denied the right to get started. It was impossible to predict, with certainty, which programs would succeed and which would fail. Enabling all programs to start, rather than supporting a limited number of initiatives and preventing most from starting, increased the number of successful programs.

Program diversity builds nimbleness and competition into the ecosystem. Multiple programs may seem to require redundant commitment of resources, but a university can be a stagnant organization unless there are pressures to be competitive, nimble, and innovative. There is a need for programs to open, succeed and fail, open and close based on performance metrics. Otherwise there is no pressure to succeed and a false sense of providing value.

9. Follow the wisdom of Truman and Reagan.

It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. (Harry Truman)

There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit. (Ronald Reagan)

This wisdom of Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan should be followed by university administrators when building entrepreneurial ecosystems. It is important that university officials or school or college deans do not accept credit for programs they helped fund or build. This type of ownership can deflect credit from faculty, staff, and community members that work hard to create and manage successful programs. It is important to provide support to faculty champions, students, and community members in their efforts to start entrepreneurial initiatives including promoting the fruits of their efforts with press releases, events, and social media.

Likewise, academic deans can be very protective of their alumni and assert ownership over an alumnus that may be more interested in university-wide initiatives. Alumni development is one of the battlegrounds that harden academic silos. When university leaders promote faculty champions for program initiatives it becomes easier to connect alumni with programs they are interested in rather than the school or college the alumnus graduated from.

At Syracuse University, alumni interested in supporting student ventures were connected to the RvD IDEA program, alumni interested in green entrepreneurship were connected to the Center of Excellence, while alumni interested in neighborhood economic revitalization were connect to the Near West Side Initiative or the SSIC. These alumni were connected to this programs based on a personal interested, regardless of the school or college the alumnus graduated from or the school or college the program was affiliated with. This requires university leadership more interested in developing an ecosystem from strong individual programs and less interested in provincial school or college support (Table 4).

Table 4. Key Factors for Success for a University-Wide Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.

1. Invest in faculty champions.

2. Create value for students.

3. Partnerships involving experiential education must involve the community. Programs should be done with the community, not to the community.

4. Plan for sustainability of financial and human resources.

5. Vibrant programs have strong teams supporting them.

6. Determine if there is supportive leadership.

7. Build an ecosystem, not a dictatorship.

8. Just say YES.

9. Follow the wisdom of Truman and Reagan.

CONCLUSION

The focus on community engagement and venture development at Syracuse University led to a rich entrepreneurial ecosystem with significant opportunities for students to learn from real-world experiences. Teaching entrepreneurship in a classroom can be like teaching swimming from a textbook. You have to get into the pool to learn how to swim. You have to start a venture, network with other entrepreneurs, and present to funders to learn how to be an entrepreneur.

This type of engagement produces a rich, diverse, nimble, and strong ecosystem. It also provides a positive impact on economic development within the community. Students and faculty that start ventures provide local job opportunities and tax revenue, in addition to the value of products and services these businesses offer. Students that successfully start ventures can also grow roots in the community increasing the chance that they stay local after graduation. This helps combat the “brain-drain” that afflicts many college–town communities like Syracuse where graduates frequently leave for jobs in larger cities.

The entrepreneurial ecosystem at Syracuse University provides a case of a diverse, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary set of programs that focus on experiential education and stretch university-wide entrepreneurship to all students regardless of major. This ecosystem includes research faculty studying topics in entrepreneurship and innovation, faculty that are venture owners, professors of practice or clinical faculty that bring their background as successful business owners to the classroom, and adjunct faculty that work fulltime at other organizations which provide experiential opportunities for students. This ecosystem includes students in traditional classroom-based courses, students in innovative internships and consultations with community entrepreneurs, and students that start for-profit and not-for-profit ventures. This ecosystem is successful because of its diverse components.

Unlike MIT or Stanford, Syracuse University does not have a history of technology commercialization that has benefited the community from a significant portfolio of disclosures and patents. The case of Syracuse University is one of supporting students, faculty, veterans, community members, and those with disabilities or economically disenfranchised from the community to start businesses and spark economic development.

Providing support for the development of entrepreneurship programs across campus also developed an ecosystem of independent initiatives that any faculty member or student could engage with, regardless of academic affiliation, but initiatives that succeeded or failed independently. This is a strategy of “letting a thousand flowers bloom” while providing the water for each flower bed from a strong academic program in entrepreneurship in the school of management and initial seed funding, support, and leadership from a central university office. With the end of the Kauffman Foundation funding in 2012, the central university office of the Associate Provost for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Syracuse University was closed. With this closure individual programs must rely on support from schools and colleges and leadership from faculty champions. For example, the Whitman School of Management supports a set of programs that are aligned with its academic programs in entrepreneurship including a community incubator, student learning community, and programs for veterans and women entrepreneurs. Other schools and colleges continue to support programs in technology entrepreneurship, environmental and energy innovation, technology commercialization, and entrepreneurship in art and design.

The university-wide program funded by the Kauffman Foundation provided the catalyst needed to grow entrepreneurship education and community engagement at Syracuse University. Any individual program in entrepreneurship and innovation will continue to be successful so long as it is aligned with the mission of its home school or college and continues to add value to the academic or research goals. Any program must also continue to have a faculty champion, support from the dean, and be economically sustainable. As individual programs continue to develop it will be interesting to see how the University ecosystem evolves in the future.

REFERENCES

Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2012). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and student spinoffs. Retrieved from http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/University-technology-transfer-through-entrepreneurship-faculty-and-students-in-spinoffs.pdf

Boni, A. A., & Emerson, S. T. (2005). An integrated model of university technology commercialization and entrepreneurship education. Colloquium on Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer.

Cantor, N., & Kingma, B. (2013). The Kauffman campuses initiative impact in central New York: Building the campus-community entrepreneurial ecosystem through scholarship in action. Entrepreneurship Education Comes of Age on Campus. Retrieved from http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/KCI_Syracuse.pdf

Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). Impact of entrepreneurship education. Retrieved from http://entrepreneurship.eller.arizona.edu/Docs/Evaluation/Impactevaluation_Entrepreneurshipprogram_UA.pdf

Hagelin, T. (2011). Syracuse University technology commercialization clinics. In and B. Kingma (Ed.), Academic entrepreneurship and community engagement (pp. 45–60). Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Haynie, J. M., & Shaheen, G. (2011). Bridging a traumatic past to an envisioned future: A case study of social entrepreneurship. In and B. Kingma (Ed.), Academic entrepreneurship and community engagement (pp. 99–109). Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598.

Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499–1508.

O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Experience R&D Management, 37(1), 1–16.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.

Rasmussen, E., & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26, 185–194.

Rice, M. P., Fetters, M. L., & Greene, P. G. (2010). University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Key success factors and recommendations. In and M. L. Fetters, P. G. Greene, & M. P. Rice (Eds.), The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Global practices. Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.

Shaheen, G. (2011). Inclusive entrepreneurship. In and B. Kingma (Ed.), Academic entrepreneurship and community engagement (pp. 110–125). Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In and G. Liebcap (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth. (Vol. 16, pp. 1–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurship ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 404–415.

Streeter, D., Jaquette, P., & Hovis, K. (2002, March). University-wide entrepreneurship education: Alternative models and current trends. Working Paper No. 2002-02, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421.

Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technology and economic development. Research policy, 37(8), 1188–1204.

CHAPTER 4

CREATING A DYNAMIC CAMPUS–COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM: KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

THE GROWTH OF THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM

KEY FACTORS FOR SUCCESS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES