Proposed workshop for the 2013 Academy of Management conference: Bringing together a powerful array of experts on how to better connect the Ivory Tower with the entrepreneurial community (and both with policy makers). Action-oriented: In Startup Weekend style, ideas for bridging projects get pitched, teams are formed and projects get hacked, then reported back

1. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
Title: Bridging the Divides between Academics, Practice, and Policy in Entrepreneurship
Primary Sponsor: All-Academy Theme (AAT)
Potential Co-sponsors: Practice Theme Committee (PTC); Entrepreneurship (ENT); Teaching
Theme Committee (TTC); Technology and Innovation Management (TIM). Also: Academy of
Management Strategic Doing Initiative
Bridging the Divides between Academics, Practice, and Policy in Entrepreneurship
Organizers [full list below]:
Dr. Suresh Kumar, CEO, Green Earth LLC; University of Phoenix, NJ
Dr. Norris F. Krueger, Jr., Entrepreneurship Northwest/College of Western Idaho.
Dr. Fedor Ovchinnikov, Entrepreneurship Division Practitioner Initiative
Abstract:
Academic and practitioner groups in the field of entrepreneurship hold large annual conferences
but rarely interact effectively. Barring a few exceptions, there is very little by way of strategic
partnerships between academic and practitioner organizations that tie in practice, research,
education, advocacy and policy in meaningful ways. While there may not be a one size fits all
solution, it is critical for academic and practitioner organizations and their individual members to
explore avenues for collaboration to find out what works and what does not. This participatory
workshop conducted by practitioner-researchers discusses practical and innovative strategies that
have worked. This workshop is not an academic exercise - rather, it will feature a series of
vignettes by expert entrepreneurs, researchers, consultants, and leaders of not-for-profit
organizations that showcases academic-practice bridging strategies that have worked in the field
of entrepreneurship education. This workshop will highlight – and develop - innovative ideas
that can help bridge the divide and identify common ground between education and practice. For
example, a recurring theme will be how we can use educational tools to help practitioners and
academics to better learn from each other. The objective of this workshop is to share knowledge
and help participants build upon it and thereby help make education and research more relevant
to practice. We encourage participants not just to showcase 'best practices' but also to reflect
upon the challenges faced, how innovative solutions were crafted, why the strategy has been so
effective, and how the experiences were leveraged to bridge learning and practice.
1

2. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
Bridging the Divides between Academics, Practice, and Policy in Entrepreneurship
[or... “Questioning Capitalism AND the Ivory Tower?”]
Overview of Workshop
At the 2012 Academy of Management conference, we had ~100 attendees from all over
the Academy join us for a rousing discussion of what was working. Rather than focus on the
negatives, our presenters and audience members kept the focus squarely on the opportunities.
The leaders of this workshop, one a well known researcher (and recovering tech
entrepreneur) and the other a serial entrepreneur now entering the groves of Academe, have over
the years experienced multiple disconnects between academics and practice in the field of
entrepreneurship. Many major academic organizations such as Academy of Management,
International Council of Small Business, and the United States Association of Small Business
and Entrepreneurship; as well as organizations that represent practitioners such as the United
States Chamber of Commerce, Inc. Magazine, and The Indus Entrepreneur (TIE) conduct large
annual conferences for their members. Our experience attending many of the events has been
that, barring a few exceptions, there is very little by way of strategic dialogue and sustainable
partnerships between academic and practitioner organizations that tie in practice, research,
education, advocacy and policy in meaningful ways.
We have found that organizations charged with fostering the practice and education of
entrepreneurship, at least for the most part, operate in silos that separate entrepreneurs from
educators and researchers. For example, academic conferences that are focused on
entrepreneurship organized by USASBE and ICSB are attended just by a handful of practicing
entrepreneurs, usually those who have a recent success story and have been invited to speak. We
attribute the following as among the reasons for this disconnect (a) there is hardly any outreach
by the organizers of academic conferences to practitioners, (b) practicing entrepreneurs have
busy schedules and select events where they can get proven and practical ideas that could
address their immediate concerns and can be applied to their businesses, not abstract research
finding, and (c) entrepreneurs and the organization that represent them often lack the training to
find and see the relevance in academic research that could contribute to better decision-making
(Davidsson, 2011).
2

3. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
Having participated in over 25 academic conferences between us, we can testify that
there are plenty of excellent mentoring and learning opportunities for researchers at academic
conferences such as doctoral consortiums and workshops. However, the value proposition for
practitioners at academic conferences is not the same. For the majority of the papers presented at
academic conferences the practical applicability is suspect. We echo the arguments made by
William Bygrave (2007), as the primary reasons for this problem: (a) use of improper datasets,
widespread use of secondary data, research models based on weak theory, research questions that
are of little relevance to the world of practice, and use of esoteric quantitative techniques that is
for the most part far removed from the reality of what actually happens inside the complex and
chaotic world of start-up‟s. According to Dale Meyer (2011), the academic field of
entrepreneurship is “stalled” due the use of econometric methodologies and secondary databases
that “distance researchers from actual people and behaviors that catalyze entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurship” (p. 7).
On the practitioner organization side, over the years, between us we have attended over
20 events and annual conferences such as the Americas Small Business Summit organized by the
US Chamber of Commerce, Tie-con of TIE, and the annual Inc. 500/5000 Conference by Inc.
magazine. At each of these events we were hard pressed to find experts from research and
academia. We argue that among of the key reasons for this missed opportunity are the following:
(a) there is hardly any outreach by practitioner organizations to the entrepreneurship educators
and researchers, (b) majority of the organizations representing practitioners stick with a narrow
agenda that is designed get the immediate attention of their membership at the cost of addressing
long term systemic issues that are supported and validated by painstaking research, (c)
educational institutions do not give tenure credit to researcher who conduct workshops, do
research, or speak at non-academic conferences, (d) universities and business schools do not
reimburse researchers the fee and expenses for non-academic conferences (Kumar, 2011). The
irony is that practitioner conferences are attended by large numbers of entrepreneurs and has the
potential to be rich sources of collection of raw data and can serve as excellent testing labs for
theory.
Our principal concern is that the disconnects discussed above could stall the progress of
both academics and practice, especially in an applied field such as entrepreneurship that many
experts believe is still in its infancy (Bygrave, 2007). However, this applies far beyond
3

4. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
entrepreneurship as it speaks to our (in)ability to share knowledge productively. For example, we
know that much of the focus will be on learning, whether sharing scholarly knowledge that has
actual-but-unrecognized practical value or deploying technology such as the MOOC.
The principal objective of the proposed workshop is to share practical strategies that have
been used by both academicians and practitioners and the organizations that represent them to
effectively bridge the gaps discussed above. While we realize that may not be a one size fits all
solution, we believe that it is critical for academic and practitioner organizations and their
individual members to explore avenues for collaboration to share best practices on what had
worked. This participatory workshop conducted by practitioner-researchers will discusses
practical strategies that can help make education and research relevant to practice.
List of Confirmed and Invited Speakers
Speakers/Presenters
1. Dr. Norris Krueger, External Fellow, Max Planck Institute of Economics/
Entrepreneurship Northwest, ID. Consultant, College of Western Idaho (Organizer)
2. Dr. Suresh Kumar, Founder and CEO, NexAge Technologies USA and Green Earth LLC,
4 time INC 500 entrepreneur, and Adjunct Faculty, University of Phoenix, NJ
(Organizer)
3. Dr. Fedor Ovichinnsky, entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship Division Practitioner Initiative.
Speakers/Presenters/Discussants/Team Mentors
4. Dr. Donna Kelley, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Babson College, MA; expert on the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (academic-policy bridge)
5. Dr. Andrew Maxwell, Director of Canadian Innovation Centre, Temple University,
founder of VentureStart (premier online technology entrepreneurship training to
practitioners)
6. Ms. Lesley Hayes, Entrepreneurs Organization (EO) lead global entrepreneurship trainer,
PhD student in entrepreneurship; EO is actively seeking to bridge to academe.
7. Dr. David Croson, immediate past program officer, National Science Foundation SCI-SIP
initiative, including practitioner-friendly research; professor at SMU; educational
entrepreneur
4

5. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
8. Dr. William Guth, NYU, Fellow of Strategic Management Society and leading consultant
on deep strategic change
9. Dr. Usha Haley, Asia-Pacific Centre, Massey University, New Zealand
10. Dr. Kuo Frank Yu, City University of Hong Kong
11. Dr. Kathryn Goldman Schuyler, Alliant University
12. Prof. Thiago de Carvalho, entrepreneur and entrepreneurship PhD student, editor of
Entrepreneurship Division Newsletter, Brazil
13. Dr. Thomas Mierzwa, Professor, Graduate School of Management and Technology,
University of Maryland, Adelphi, MD, presenter at 2012 PDW
14. Dr. Robert D‟Intino, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Rowan University, NJ, veteran of the
2012 PDW, expert on education (e.g., MOOCs)
15. Mr. William Dennis, NFIB Research Foundation, expert on policy-academe-practitioner
linkages, global speaker on this topic
Invited Discussion Provocateurs [may participate via video]
16. Mr. Tom Park, CTO of the United States (joint practitioner-academe-government
projects)
17. Ms. Leah Nichols, AAAS/NSF project on Startup Weekend-style public policy
development using entrepreneurs and academics
18. Mr. Franck Nouyrigat, co-founder of Startup Weekend, director of Startup Weekend
Research.
19. Thom Ruhe, Vice-President, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
20. Vivek Wadhwa, Duke/Berkeley/Kauffman Foundation, practitioner research on key
policy issues
We also acknowledge the invaluable advice & assistance of Per Davidsson (QUT), past chair of
ENT and a true pioneer at gap-bridging and Dr. Tyrone Pitsis (University of Newcastle,
Academy of Management Strategic Doing Initiative) who nudged us “gently” toward AAT
submission.
5

6. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
Sponsor Rationales
Why AAT?
We have a unique opportunity to question both „capitalism‟ and the Ivory Tower.
Entrepreneurship itself is a different way to look at organizing economic activity as it focuses on
creating and delivering value to key stakeholders. Certainly entrepreneurs play an increasing role
is solving society‟s problems and certainly interest in entrepreneurship has exploded in
universities. However… there remain huge disconnects that need to be addressed. But we can
bridge these divides in ways that benefit far more than just “us”.
We bring together here a remarkable group of the very best at bridging these divides. (They also
represent membership in almost every Division and represent public, private and nonprofit
worlds.) We had a big turnout last year for our „beta test‟ without marketing. Judging by reaction
to this draft, we anticipate even more buzz.
Equally important, we developed an action-oriented format where audience members will play
meaningful roles and have great takeaways (see proposal) plus personal action items that will
benefit their universities, their communities and the Academy of Management as a whole.
Why PTC?
Sponsored a successful version of this workshop in 2012 (~100 attendees with no marketing)
where presenters shared several examples where the divide between Academe and practice were
bridged successfully. More important, the vigorous audience participation yielded considerable
insight plus a couple of new projects (and a couple of new friendships!)
Why ENT?
Co-championed last year‟s PDW and had the highest representation among attendees. As noted,
a successful version of this workshop in 2012 (~100 attendees with no marketing) offered
presenters who shared several examples where the divide between Academe and practice were
bridged successfully. More important, the vigorous audience participation yielded considerable
6

7. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
insight plus a couple of new projects (and a couple of new friendships!) One co-chair leads the
Division‟s project to increase engagement with practitioner, a discussant chairs the Division‟s
NonTraditional Academics committee, and we include multiple former Division officers.
Why Strategic Doing Initiative?
The creation of this new AoM initative further validates that we are on the right track but it also
tells us that we have much more to do and need to reach out even more broadly. We have had
considerable invaluable advice on this project from the Strategic Doing team, including Tyrone
Pitsis as a co-chair.
Why TIM?
Last year‟s successful PDW on this topic included significant (and visible) participation by TIM
members. Also, technology played a critical role in several of the 2012 examplars and will be
even more prominent in 2013.
Why TTC?
A successful version of this workshop in 2012 (~100 attendees with no marketing) where
presenters shared several examples where the divide between Academe and practice were
bridged successfully. Two of them were teaching-related and educational projects are even more
prominent this year (developing MOOCs).
7

8. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
Format of Workshop:
This workshop is not intended as an academic exercise - rather, it will move beyond the
usual „talking heads‟ presentation-and-discussion format toward initiating strategic actions that
address different facets of the divide. We will not just discuss 'best practices' but also to reflect
upon the challenges faced, the processes used to arrive at solutions, why the strategy has been so
effective, and how the experiences were leveraged to enhance learning and practice.
More important, we learned from last year that we do not want to engage the talents of
the audience, we want to *immerse* them in this bridging process.
To that end, we propose the following:
1) Introductions and overview [short]
2) Some initial examples of highly successful bridgings to prime the pump
3) We then move into hackathon mode (think Startup Weekend model):
a. 10-15 elevator pitches* from the panel & audience alike of 60-90 seconds
b. Form teams around the „best‟ ideas
c. PDW organizers and discussants serve as mentors, as needed for each team.
4) Scrum-style, teams spend 30-60 minutes developing a strategic or tactical proposal for
bridging one particular gap, complete with immediate action items and commitment for
action by each team member.
5) The teams then report back to the PDW with their proposal where we look for ways for
the various projects to collaborate (and, if possible, where the various sponsors and
friends of the PDW such as the Divisions can assist.)
6) Post-PDW, the co-organizers will create a comprehensive report of all the proposals and
action items. They will also assist in following up with the promised action items.
Sections 1 & 2: No more than 30 minutes [the schedule depends on total time]
Section 3: 20-30 minutes
Section 4: 30-75 minutes
Section 5: 15-20 minutes.
[we will likely need 2 hours but if we get sizeable attendance, 3 hours would be
invaluable; as you can see, this is scalable from ~90 minutes to 180 minutes]
We could easily generate 10+ excellent proposal ideas from the participants, however, we really
want to offer opportunities to the audience as well. To that end, we will solicit ideas in advance
8

9. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
and, if necessary, identify the best non-redundant projects. (We will encourage but not require
pre-registration.) Given proof of concept from 2012, we feel comfortable to market this PDW
vigorously.
Audience Takeaways
Pre-registrants (and others, as feasible) will get to see the broad array of opportunities arising
from the bridging of the gaps between Academe, policy and practice… from bridging academics,
policy experts and entrepreneurs.
This will be a very human process – we are bringing together a diverse range of talented,
passionate individuals who are working at this interface, both on the PDW and in its audience.
Attendees will get to know some amazing people who are eager to pursue tangible, productive
projects. (Yes, even research!)
This is intended to be part of a much broader effort in Academe to move this forward (e.g.,
Divisional efforts like ENT‟s Practitioner effort and Academy-wide efforts like the Strategic
Doing Initiative). Attendees will be able to join the „crusade‟ – a community of practice that
extends well beyond a few PDWs.
Audience members will take away a deeper insight in how and why to use these tools and we
anticipate that the experiential learning will provide specific insights for their own critical issues.
Audience members will also see the remarkable array of research issues that can be uniquely
addressed at the intersection of business modeling and social/sustainable entrepreneurship.
We also hope to build a community of practice around all this; this must not be a one-off event
(no matter how much fun we will be having).
Finally, each breakout group is drafting an actionable proposal for moving forward with specific
action items that each participant will publicly commit to.
9

10. Proposal for Professional Development Workshop #15279
Conclusion:
Despite the rapid growth experienced by the academic field of entrepreneurship and the
practice of entrepreneurship as two distinct endeavors, the challenges faced at their intersection
are deep and multifaceted. Given that the end goals of organizations, regardless of academic or
practitioner focused, are more or less similar, organizational leaders have the responsibility to
ensure greater collaboration. While we realize there may not be a one size fits all solution, it is
critical for academic and practitioner organizations and their individual members to explore
avenues for collaboration to find out what works and what does not. This professional
development workshop is an attempt to share knowledge and find common grounds between
academic and practice.
10