Prévia do material em texto
The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 Available online 5 December 2022 1472-8117/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. A transformational learning framework for sustainable entrepreneurship education: The power of Paulo Freire’s educational model Rita G. Klapper a,*, Alain Fayolle a,b,c,d,e,f a IDRAC Business School, 47 rue Sergent Michel Berthet CP607, 69258, LYON, Cedex 09, France b CREA University of Cagliari, Italy and IDRAC Business School, France c Visiting Professor Turku School of Economics, Finland d Chair of the Strategic and Prospective Committee at IFAG, School of Management and Entrepreneurship, France e Past Distinguished Professor and Entrepreneurship Research Centre Director, EMLYON Business School, France f Past President Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division, France A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Freire’s critical pedagogy Shotter’s withinness Sipos Battisti & Grimm’s head Hands and heart’ Sustainable entrepreneurship education A B S T R A C T This paper responds to the paucity of theorisation on sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE) to date. By virtue of its potential commitment to transforming socio-economic relations, we argue that Freire’s critical pedagogical approach offers a basis for a theory of SEE that has the potential to be transformational at the individual, organisational and societal level. We show how Freire’s approach, which has already found some application in entrepreneurship education (EE), can be complemented in two ways for the purpose of SEE. Firstly, through the addition of Shotter’s withinness (rather than aboutness) thinking, which provides a rationale for dialogue with practitioners as a means of developing a subjectively informed understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship in practice. Secondly, through Sipos, Battisti & Grimm’s Head, Hands and Heart approach to transformational learning in sustainability education, which provides a practical guide to the different types of learning that are involved in such transformation. We argue that the cognitive (Head), psycho-motor (Hands) and affective (Heart) domains of learning are essential in practical SEE that aims to bring profound changes in knowledge, skills and attitudes, transforming mindsets of both learners and educators in line with the new socio-economic, environmental challenges that our societies face. 1. Introduction Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been valued for its contribution to economic growth and employment (Anand et al., 2021; Greco & de Jong, 2017; Schumpeter, 1934; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Teran-Yepez et al., 2020). Yet over at least the last decade there has also been growing recognition of the potential of entrepreneurship to also provide solutions to societal and environmental challenges (Anand et al., 2021; Klapper et al., 2020; Munoz & Cohen, 2018; Shepherd et al., 2020). As Greco and de Jong (2017) point out, there is now a solid literature arguing for positive relationships between sustainable development and sustainable entrepre- neurship, in which re-oriented business enterprises and entrepreneurial endeavour are acknowledged as a key engine for societal, * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: rita.klapper@ecoles-idrac.fr (R.G. Klapper), ajc.fayolle@gmail.com (A. Fayolle). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The International Journal of Management Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100729 Received 6 February 2022; Received in revised form 28 October 2022; Accepted 4 November 2022 mailto:rita.klapper@ecoles-idrac.fr mailto:ajc.fayolle@gmail.com www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14728117 https://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100729 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100729 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100729&domain=pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100729 The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 2 environmental and economic progress. Nonetheless, the literature also attests that, although there are many overlaps between con- ventional and ‘sustainable’ entrepreneurship (Anand et al., 2021; Klapper et al., 2020), while the framing rules of economic systems remain wedded to growth, sustainable entrepreneurship will remain the exception (ibid). Most recently under the pressure of increasing awareness of the scarcity of key natural resources and deepening perceptions of injustice and inequity in our societies, notably in terms of sharing natural resources and wealth, a deep, societal crisis has been unfolding, threatening well-established socio-economic and capitalist systems, triggering a high level of questioning regarding the fragility of existing economic, ecological, environmental, political and demographic structures (Anand et al., 2021; Raworth, 2017). At the same time, these unsettling changes, of which underlying causal knowledge has been available since Rachel Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring, have been the gateway to, and source of entrepreneurial opportunities to create new organisations with more sustainable business models in line with the changing aspirations and mindsets of populations in developed and developing countries. Arguably, SEE has an important contribution to make in terms of raising awareness among young and older generations of these challenges and developing corresponding knowledge, capacities, competencies, practices, aspirations and mindsets that can recognize, create, value and exploit opportunities appropriate to addressing global crises affecting socio-economic, environmental and political domains (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). In particular, issues of social and increasingly environmental inequalities arguably need to be of particular importance to educators, given the traditional role of education of being an important tool for upward mobility (Freire, 1971; Mishel et al., 2012), and increasing societal acknowledgement of both the exceedance of planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009) and of the need for just transitions to lower impact forms of economy (e.g. Delina & Sovacool, 2018). For a definition and detailed review of both social and environmental inequalities and the link between the two, see Laurent (2010). At issue is the question of what kind of contribution sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) – and sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE) – may make to socio-economic, ecological and political challenges affecting our societies, how to theorize and conceptualise this, and – just as importantly – how to practise it. Despite a wealth of literature on (i) EE (see for instance Fayolle, 2013, Fayolle et al., 2016; Klapper, 2004, Pittaway & Cope, 2007, Refai et al., 2015; Nabi et al., 2017, Neck & Corbett, 2018, Wan & X, 2021); (ii) sustainability education or education for sustainability (ESD) (see for instance Aboytes & Barth, 2020; Evans, 2019, Dal Magro et al., 2020, Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011 a/b); and (iii) responsible management education (RME) (see for instance Cornuel & Hommel, 2015, Doherty et al., 2015, Dyllick, 2015, Bek- meier-Feuerhahn et al. (2018), Klapper & Refai, 2015, Rasche et al., 2013; Walmsley et al., 2019), to date there remains relatively little research on the implementation and impact of SEE. Moreover, in a comprehensive review of the sustainable entrepreneurship liter- ature, Moya-Clemente et al. (2021), found no work on SEE among the 20 most cited papers. Similarly, in an extensive literature review by Anand et al. (2021), Greco and de Jong (2017) and Teran-Yepez et al. (2020) on the topic of SE, no suggestions for research avenues in relation to SEE were found. All of this leaves opens a substantial research lacuna for theoretical and applied work in the field of SEE pedagogy. Arguably, SEE occurs at the intersection of the theory and practice of education, sustainableand entrepreneurship: this requires an interdisciplinary, integrative approach to definition and application. We have addressed the question of what pedagogical approaches may be suitable for the teaching and learning of SE. We have advocated transformational learning theory and in particular Paulo Freire’s (1970/1996, 1973/1998) critical pedagogy, supplemented by close practitioner engagement that is underpinned by Shotter’s withness philosophy, and operationalised in ways that address students’ affect, knowledge and practical skills (ie. the hands, head and heart framework of Sipos et al. (2008). We are aware that our propositions cover a lot of theoretical ground, but we do so in order to respond to the paucity of theorisation on SE pedagogy to date, and to avoid a fragmented response that addresses parts of the problem separately, without connection. We argue that SE pedagogy needs to be individually and societally transformative. Our integrative perspective aims to stimulate deep, transformational learning experiences, and processes of constructive and meaningful learning that go beyond simple knowledge acquisition/transfer about entrepreneurship and sustainability, and that engage learners’ hearts and bodies as well as their minds. Such learning supports key ways in which learners make meaning of their lives, including becoming entrepreneurs for a better and more sustainable world. Our view supports the notion that SEE needs to move beyond talking about and describing SE, towards creating an understanding of why, where, how and with whom such entrepreneurship emerges (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Gibb, 2002). SEE could be seen as a multi-layered transformational learning experience through (potentially innovative and creative) events, which over time create the phenomenon. In terms of limitations, firstly our framework is to date conceptual: it needs practical application and testing in Higher Education, Further Education, nationally and cross-nationally, also considering developed and developing country perspectives. Philosophy without tools is of partial value, as are tools without a guiding philosophy. Further research needs to design learning interventions that are in alignment with the conceptual framework proposed here, involving educators, learners and those involved in SE practice. Research could be conducted at several levels ranging from individual, group, organisational and societal level to establish changes in the Head, Hands and Heart dimensions. More precisely, there is a need to study changes in mindsets/attitudes/intentions, behaviours and affect associated with SE. Pre-experiment, during and post intervention measurement tools and longitudinal research need to be Fig. 1. Guiding framework: Paulo Freire’s key concepts, enhanced by Shotter’s withinness thinking and Sipos, Battisti & Grimm’s Head, Hands and Heart (HHH). R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 12 designed in line with the proposed framework to establish changes in mindsets of both learners, educators and practitioners. Equally important would be research at the organisational level that examines changes in the nature of enterprises created by the learners, and the impacts of SEE on the organisational realities of practitioners involved in such pedagogy. One further important research avenue could be to investigate whether SE has been ‘learned’, is believed, and/or is integral part of practices in participants’ lives. In addition, it could be of interest to examine the applicability of the conceptual framework in specific contexts such as both developing and developed country contexts. An important question that goes beyond the framework of this research is also the question asked by Neck and Corbett (2018) whether we are talking about entrepreneurship pedagogy or whether the terms andragogy and heutagogy would be more appropriate given that our learners are supposed to be responsible adults learners. The critical issues and challenges of sustainability and entrepreneurship also require that we raise our own awareness of the need to critically reflect and re-evaluate the assumptions and concepts that learners have about the world and themselves, i.e., that we help them question their own as well as others’ frames of reference. As a result, through transformational experiences and the emergence of distinct types of change (changes in understanding of the self, revision of belief systems and changes in lifestyle), our ambition is that learners align their lives according to new assumptions. The challenges of the world as we find it now demands no less. Author statement We have pleasure resubmitting our work to your SI on Educational theory driven teaching in entrepreneurship in the International Journal of Management Education. Herewith we certify that our work entitled A Transformational Learning Framework for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Education: The Power of Paulo Freire’s Educational model has been seen and approved by the two co-authors, ie. Drs Rita G. Klapper & Alain Fayolle. We can confirm that this article is our own original work, has not been published before and is not under consideration elsewhere. Data availability No data was used for the research described in the article. References Aboytes, J. G. R., & Barth, M. (2020). Transformative learning in the field of sustainability: A systematic literature review (1999-2019. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(5), 993–1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2019-0168 Akkari, A. J., & Mesquida, P. (2008). Paulo Freire: Building a multicultural pedagogy for silenced voices. In P. R. Dasen, & A. Akkari (Eds.), Educational theories and practices from the majority world. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd. Allen, S., Cunliffe, A. L., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2019). Understanding sustainability through the lens of ecocentric radical-reflexivity: Implications for management education. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(3), 781–795 (Baker AC, Jensen). Anand, A., Argade, P., Barkemeyer, R., & Salignac, F. (2021). Trends and patterns in sustainable entrepreneurship research: A bibliometric review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3). May. Aronowitz, S. (1993). Paulo Freire’s radical democratic humanism. In P. McLaren, & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (pp. 8–24). London: Routledge. Baumgartner, L. (2001). An update on transformative learning in new directions for adult and continuing education (Vol. 89, pp. 15–24). https://doi.org/10.1002/ace4 Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., Hetze, K., & Klapper, R. G. (2018). Bachelor of business administration in transition: Integration of responsible management education in the German higher education. In M. Raueiser, & M. Kolb (Eds.), CSR und Hochschulmanagement, Management-Reihe Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56314-4_5, 2018. Bell, D. V. J. (2016). Twenty-first Century Education: Transformative Education for Sustainability and Responsible Citizenship. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-0004 Bolin, T. D. (2017). Struggling for democracy: Paulo Freire and transforming society through education policy futures in education (Vol. 15, pp. 744–766), 6. Bruyat, C., & Julien, P.-A. (2001). Defining the Field of Research in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883- 9026(99)00043-9 Carson, R. (1962) (Anniversary edition). Silent Spring Houghton Mifflin Company. October 22. Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001 Cornuel, E., & Hommel, U. (2015). Moving beyond the rhetoric of responsible management education. The Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 2–15. Cunliffe, A. (2018). Learning, reflexivity and knowing from within: Being inspired by John shotter or why isn’t He wearing socks? Teoria e Prática em Administração, 8 (2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.21714/2238-104X2018v8i2S-40871 Dal Magro, R., Pozzebon, M., & Schutel, S. (2020). Enriching the intersection of service and transformative learning with Freirean ideas: The case of a critical experiential learning programme in Brazil. Management Learning, 51(5), 579–597, 2020. De Satpio, J. (2017). Transformational learning: A literature review of recent criticism. Journal of Transformative Learning, 4(2), 56–63. Dehler, G. E., Welsh, M. A., & Lewis, M. (2001). Management Learning, 31(4), 493–511. Delina, L. L., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Of temporality and plurality: An epistemic and governance agenda for accelerating just transitions for energy access and sustainable development. Curr Opin Environ Sustain [Internet, 34, 1–6. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343517302725. Doherty, B., Meehan, J., & Richards, A. (2015). The business case and barriers for responsible management education in business schools. The Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 34–60. Doran, P. (2016). Head, hand and heart: Immersive learning for a demanding new climate at queen’s university belfast’s school of law. The Law Teacher, 5(3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2016.1241049 Dyllick, T. (2015). Responsible management education for a sustainable world. The Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD- 02-2013-0022 Evans, T. L. (2019). Competencies and pedagogies for sustainability education. A Roadmap for Sustainability Studies Program Development in Colleges and Universities Sustainability, 11(19), 5526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195526 Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08985626.2013.821318 Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7). Freire, P. (1971). Cultural action for freedom (Vol. 48). Penguin. R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2019-0168 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref2 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref2 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref3 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref3 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref4 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref4 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref5 https://doi.org/10.1002/ace4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56314-4_5 https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-0004 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00043-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00043-9 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref13 https://doi.org/10.21714/2238-104X2018v8i2S-40871 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref15 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref15 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref16 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343517302725 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref19 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref19 https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2016.1241049 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2013-0022 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2013-0022 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195526 https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.821318 https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.821318 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref24 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref24 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref25 The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 13 Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: The Continuum Publishing Company. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Freire. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary edition). New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 1970. Freire, P., Frazer, J. D., Macedo, D., McKinnon, T., & T Stokes, W. (Eds.). (1997). Mentoring the mentor: A critical dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp. 175–199). New York: Peter Lang. Gadotti, M. (1994). Reading Paulo Freire. His Life and Work Suny Press. Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new entrepreneurial paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values. New Ways of Doing Things and New Combination of Knowledge International Journal of Management Reviews, 4, 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00086 Glavas, A. (2012). Employee engagement and sustainability A model for implementing meaningfulness at and in work jcc 46 summer. Greenleaf Publishing. Greco, A., & de Jong, G. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Definitions, themes and research gaps working paper series. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/Campus Fryslân, 6 (17). Hannon, P. D. (2018). On becoming and being an entrepreneurship educator: A personal reflection. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(7–8), 698–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1464259 Herman, R. R., & Bossle, M. B. (2019). Bringing an entrepreneurial focus to sustainability education: A teaching framework based on content analysis Journal of cleaner production (pp. 246–260). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119038 Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492. Jagannathan, R., Camasso, M. J., & Delacalle, M. (2018). The effectiveness of a head-heart-hands model for natural and environmental science learning in urban school. Evaluation and Program Planning Feb, 66, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.001 Jones, C. (2018). A signature pedagogy for entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(2), 243–254. Jones, P., Maas, G., Dobson, S., Newbery, R., Agyapong, D., & Matlay, H. (2018). Entrepreneurship in africa, part 2: Entrepreneurial education and eco-systems. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(4), 550–553. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2018-400 Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 2). New York. Norton: Clinical Diagnosis and Psychotherapy. Volume 1: A Theory of Personality. Kevany, K. D. (2007). Building the requisite capacity for stewardship and sustainable development. International. Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(2), 107–122. Kirylo, J. D. (2011). Freirean themes. In J. D. Kirylo (Ed.), Paulo Freire: The man from recife. New York: Peter Lang AG. Klapper, R. (2004). Government goals and entrepreneurship education – an investigation at a Grande Ecole in France. Education + Training, 46(3), 127–137. Klapper, R. G., & Farber, V. (2016). In Alain Gibb’s footsteps: Evaluating alternative approaches to sustainable enterprise education (SEE) Int. Journal of Management Education, 14, 1–18. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472811716300556.Klapper, R. G., & Neergaard, H. (2017). Teaching entrepreneurship as lived experience through ‘wonderment exercises. In , Vol. 7. Entrepreneurship education (contemporary issues in entrepreneurship research (pp. 145–170). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2040-724620170000007011. Klapper, R. G., Oberstrass, T., & Upham, P. J. (2021). Integrated pedagogy for sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation Academy of Management Proceedings. https:// doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.105 Klapper, R., & Refai, D. (2015). A Gestalt model of entrepreneurial learning. In Entrepreneurial learning: The development of new perspectives in research, education and practice. Routledge studies in entrepreneurship (pp. 156–177). London, UK: Routledge, 978- 0-415-72324-4 http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/21749/. Klapper, R., & Upham, P. (2015). The impact of micro-firm everyday practices on sustainable development in local communities. In Handbook of entrepreneurship and sustainable development research (pp. 275–295). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Klapper, R., Upham, P. J., & Blundel, R. (2020). Insider perspectives on growth: Implications for a non-dichotomous understanding of ‘sustainable’ and conventional entrepreneurship. Business Strategy And the Environment, 30(3), 1481–1496. Kuckertz, A. (2021). Why we think we teach entrepreneurship and why we should really teach it. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 24(3). Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524. uckertz, A. (2018. Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: Towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 37–47. Laurent, E. (2010). Environmental justice and environmental inequalities: A European perspective working paper N◦ 2010-05. Paris: Observatoires Francais des Conjonctures Economiques. Mclaren, P. (2000). Che guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of revolution. Oxford Press. Mejia, A. (2004). The problem of knowledge imposition: Paulo Freire and Critical Systems thinking. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, Syst. Res., 21, 63–82. Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective Transformation Adult Education Quarterly, 28(2), 100–110. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow, & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in process (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milton, P. (2015). Shifting minds 3.0: Redefining the learning landscape in Canada. Canadians for 21st Century Learning Retrieved . (Accessed 1 February 2022). Mishel, L., Bivens, J., Gould, E., & Shierholz, H. (2012). The state of working America (12th ed.). Washington: Institute of Economic Policy/Cornell University Press. OECD, 2010. Moraes, J. D. D., & Antunes, E. D. D. (2011). Guiding thoughts on research into management: The contribution of Paulo Freire R. Adm. FACES Journal Belo Horizonte, 11(3), 53–63. ⋅jul./set. 2011. ISSN 1984-6975 (online). ISSN 1517-8900 (Impressa). Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Chaves-Vargas, J. C. (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurship: An approach from bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(2), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.13934. Jan. Munoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurship research: Taking stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 300–322. https:// doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000. ISSN 0964-4733. Nabi, G., Linan, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 277–299. Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2515127417737286 Oberstrass, T. (2020). Pedagogy in sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation - exploring the education program by EIT climate KIC during the journey 2018 from participants’ perspectives. Germany: Leuphana University. unpublished Master dissertation. O’Flaherty, J., & Liddy, M. (2018). The impact of development education and education for sustainable development interventions: A synthesis of the research. Environmental Education Research, 24(7), 1031–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1392484 Pacheco, D. F., Dean, T. J. D., & Payne, D. S. (2010). Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 464–480. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship Education: A systematic Review of the Evidence International Small Business Journal, 25, 479–510. Rasche, A., Gilbert, D., & Schedel, I. (2013). Cross-disciplinary ethics education in MBA programs: Rhetoric or reality? The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(1), 71–85. Raworth, K. (2017). A doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s Compass in the 21st Century, 1(2), 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17) 30028-1 Refai, D., & Higgins, D. (2017). A mystagogical view of ‘withness’ in entrepreneurship education Industry and Higher Education, 31(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0950422217694254 © Refai, D., & Klapper, R. G. (2016). The state of the art of enterprise education within pharmacy education in the UK: Experiential learning in institutionally constrained contexts. Jnt. Journal of Entrepreneurial Research and Behaviour, 22(4), 485–509. R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref26 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref27 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref28 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref29 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref29 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref30 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00086 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref32 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref33 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref33 https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1464259 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119038 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref36 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref36 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.09.001 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref38 https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2018-400 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref40 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref41 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref41 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref42 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref43 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472811716300556 https://doi.org/10.1108/S2040-724620170000007011 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.105 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.105 http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/21749/ http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref48 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref48 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref49 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref49 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref50 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref51 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref51 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref52 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref52 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref53 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref54 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref55 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref56 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref57 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref57 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref58 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref59 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref59 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref60 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref60 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.13934 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000 https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2000 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref63 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref63 https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286 https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref65 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref65 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1392484 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref67 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref67 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref68 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref69 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref69 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17) 30028-1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422217694254 © https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422217694254 © http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref72 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref72 The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 14 Refai, D., Klapper, R., Thompson, J. J., & L, J. (2015). A holistic social constructionist perspective to enterprise education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(3), 316–337. ISSN 1355-2554. Rockström, J., Nykvist, B., Wit, CA De, Hughes, T., Leeuw, S Van Der, & Rodhe H, H. (2009). Planetary boundaries : Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecologia y Sociedad, 14(2), 1–25. Available from: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. Rugut, E. J., & Osman, A. A. (2013). Reflection on Paulo Freire and classroom relevance. American International Journal of Social Science, 2(2), 23–28. Schaefer, K., Corner, P. D., & Kearins, K. (2015). Social, environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship research: What is needed for sustainability-as-flourishing? Organization & Environment, 28(4), 394–413. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. Schumpeter, E. F. (1934). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy Of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. Shepherd, D. A., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2020). Entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation: The importance of health and children’s education for slum entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 45(2), 350–385. Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137–163. Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Shotter, J. (2005). Inside the moment of managing’: Wittgenstein and the everyday dynamics of our expressive-responsive activities. Organization Studies, 26(1), 143–164. ISSN 0170–8406. Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ’withness’ thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0170840606062105 Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008a). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810842193 Souto-Manning, M. (2010). The critical cycle. In M. Souto-Manning (Ed.), Freire, teaching, and learning: Culture circles across contexts (pp. 29–45). New York: Peter Lang. Teran-Yepez, E., Marín-Carrillo, G. M., Casado-Belmonte, M. D. P., Capobianco-Uriarte, M. D. L. M., & Mercedes Capobianco-Uriarte, M. D. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review of its evolution and new trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.119742 81 Unesco. (2021). What is education for sustainable development. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable. (Accessed 25 January 2022). Verduijn, K., & Berglund, K. (2020). Pedagogical invention in entrepreneurship education: Adopting a critical approach in the classroom. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 26(5), 937–988. Waisbord, S. (2020). Why Paulo Freire is a threat for right-wing populism: Lessons for communication of hope. International Communication Gazette, 82(5), 440–455. Walmsley, A., Moon, C., Apostolopoulos, N., & Jones, P. (2019). Towards responsible entrepreneurship education Paper presented at the 42nd Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship conference, SPACE – exploring new frontiers and entrepreneurial places. Newcastle. Wals, A. E. J. (2011). Learning our way out of unsustainability. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5(2), 177–186. Wan, N., & X, L. V. (2021). A bibliometric analysis on the landscape of entrepreneurship education in higher education (2001–2020). Entrepreneurship Education, 4, 375–402. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6, 203–218. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C., & Mills, S. B. (2011). Moving forward on competence in sustainability research and problem solving. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(2), 3–12. Wilkinson, T. J., & Bencze, C. (2015). In K. Stables, S. Keir Environment, Ethics, & Culture (Eds.), With head, hand and heart, children address ethical issues of design in Technology education (Vol. 13, pp. 231–243). International Education Technology Studies. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell. Wright, T. (2015). Distinguished scholar invited essay: Reflections on the role of character in business education and student leadership development. J. of Leadership and Organisational Studies, 22(3), 253–264. Wyness, L., Jones, P., & Klapper, R. G. (2015). In Sustainability: What the Entrepreneurial Educators Think Education & Training, 57 pp. 834–852), 8/9. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 519–532. R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref73 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref73 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref75 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref76 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref77 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref77 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref78 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref78 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref79 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref80 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref81http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref81 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref82 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref82 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref83 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref84 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref84 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606062105 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606062105 https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810842193 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref88 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref88 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.119742 81 https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref91 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref91 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref92 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref93 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref93 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref94 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref95 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref95 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref96 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref96 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref97 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref97 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref98 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref98 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref99 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref100 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref101 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref102 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1472-8117(22)00131-8/sref102 A transformational learning framework for sustainable entrepreneurship education: The power of Paulo Freire’s educational model 1 Introduction 2 The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) 3 Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), responsible management education (RME) and sustainable entrepreneurship educ ... 3.1 Sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE): An understudied area 3.2 SEE and the need for social change 4 Transformational learning theory (TLT) 5 Paulo Freire’s educational model and pedagogy 5.1 Freire on dialogue 5.2 Freire on conscientisation 5.3 Freire on praxis 5.4 Problem-based learning (PBL) 6 Sipos et al.’s (2008) Head, Hands and heart framework 7 Shotter’s withinness rather than aboutness thinking 8 Integrative educational model and pedagogical propositions for sustainable entrepreneurship education 8.1 Pedagogical proposition #1; Refocus the pedagogical objectives on the transformation and emancipation of learners 8.2 Pedagogical proposition #2: reshape the relationship and the quality of interactions between educators and learners 8.3 Pedagogical proposition #3: Redefine the learning situation through the problem-posing/problem-based learning pedagogy 8.4 Pedagogical proposition #4: Give more attention to the concept of meaningfulness within the context of problem-based/pr ... 8.5 Pedagogical proposition #5: Design learning interventions that involve close dialogue with praxis 9 Conclusion Author statement Data availability Referencesdevelopment and entrepreneurship: this requires an interdisciplinary, integrative approach to definition and application. Here we address the question of what pedagogical approaches are suitable for the teaching and learning of SE. Our work contributes to the existing literature in SEE in several ways: Firstly, we propose a holistic framework consisting of Paulo Freire’s (1970/1996, 1973/1998, 2005) critical pedagogy, supplemented by close practitioner engagement underpinned by Shotter’s (2006) withinness rather than aboutness approach; operationalised in ways that address students’ affect, knowledge and practical skills through the integrative framework “hands, head and heart” developed by Sipos et al. (2008). Few studies have explored the relevance of Freire’s work in the context of EE - see for instance Verduijn & Berglund, 2020); and even fewer have brought Shotter’s work into EE (see for instance Klapper & Refai, 2015). While Sipos et al. (2008) Head, Hands and Heart framework itself has emerged from a review of the sustainability education literature, to our knowledge, no work has illustrated the value of drawing on insights from Freire, Shotter and Sipos, Battisti & Grimm within the context of EE and SEE. Secondly, we examine the role of the educator in the SEE process against the background of the work of the latter authors. The role of the educator has attracted scant attention in EE research, notable exceptions being Hannon (2018). Thirdly, we develop a number of propositions that consider the learning process, the role of the educator/learner and lay foundations for future empirical work in SEE. The article is structured as follows. Firstly, we define what we mean more precisely by SE, followed by a review of the literature on SEE, including a brief look at sustainability education and RME, as the latter are not our core focus here. To create a framework for SEE, we embed Paulo Freire’s work on the pedagogy of the oppressed and Sipos et al. (2008) heuristic of Head, Hands and Heart in the wider literature on transformational learning theories, and we propose Shotter’s (2006) withinness thinking as an underpinning component of a transformational pedagogy suitable for SEE. We develop an integrative framework and propositions for SEE and round off the discussion with implications for future research as well as limitations of our work. 2. The concept of sustainable entrepreneurship (SE) Unlike conventional entrepreneurship, which mainly focuses on economic profit maximization, sustainable entrepreneurship builds on the key premise that entrepreneurs have the potential to create economic, social and ecological value by means of their business activity (Munoz & Cohen, 2018; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). SE has been considered as a subfield of entrepreneurship research (Anand et al., 2021) and as an overarching way of looking at the contribution of entrepreneurial endeavours to social, ecological and economic endeavour, i.e. sustainable development (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). SE captures the interactive rela- tionship between entrepreneurs as economic actors, society and the natural environment, where economic and non-economic gain are considered. As Lans et al. (2014) underline, different schools of thought have explored the relationship between entrepreneurship and R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 3 sustainable development. This has led to the emergence of new types of entrepreneurs such as ecopreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and “sustainabilitypreneurs” (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Zahra et al., 2009). As Lans et al. (2014) argue, the term ‘sustainable entre- preneurship’ combines the best of both worlds, by involving activities and processes closely related to the identification, evaluation and exploitation of business opportunities (Cohen & Winn, 2007; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), while contributing to sustainable development at the same time (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011; Zahra et al., 2009). Hence it is not surprising that for entrepreneurs, sustainability may be seen as a way of generating competitive advantage, leading to the emergence of new and sustainable products, more sustainable methods of production and/or more sustainable business processes. Teran-Yepez et al. (2020) highlight that SE has come to be seen as a unique perspective that focuses on the much wider systemic impact of SE by considering different stakeholders involved in the process of SE, as well consequences of the latter that transcend pure economics, integrating psychological, social and environmental repercussions. Not only is the well-being of future generations at stake (Teran-Yepez et al., 2020), but increasingly the well-being of those living now too. SE cuts across disciplines, connecting sociology, psychology, politics, environmental sciences, economics (Munoz & Cohen, 2018, Schaefer et al., 2015) where it shapes and is shaped by the latter fields, with their inherent assumptions, relevant institutional contexts, the type of organisations and individuals who are (key) actors in their plurality of roles ranging from business person, politician to entrepreneur. As a result, as Anand et al. (2021, p.3) conclude SE can also be seen as “a multiplicity of academic discourses rather than one coherent construct”. As the authors suggest, much of the SE research seen to date remains a reflection of mainstream entrepre- neurship, investigating, for example, entrepreneurial motivations, the entrepreneurial opportunity recognition process, and contexts in which sustainable entrepreneurs (hip) flourishes, as well as the interaction of the latter with institutional designs. The concept of SE has attracted a growing interest over the last decade, with an increasing number of literature reviews being published to explore the nature of SE, the evolution of the field and providing directions for future research (see for instance Anand et al. (2021); Munoz & Cohen, 2018; Schaefer et al., 2015; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011; Teran-Yepez et al., 2020). Early literature reviews largely focused on defining SE by differentiating the field from other types of responsible entrepreneurship i.e. social entrepreneurship and environmental entrepreneurship and by better understanding its ‘components’ (i.e. triple-bottom-line) and the relationship be- tween these (Pacheco et al., 2010). Questions around the nature of SE and how this process could or should unfold have become increasingly topical (see e.g., Cohen & Winn, 2007; Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010; Klapper & Farber, 2016; Klapper & Upham, 2015; Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011). Indeed, one of the key questions raised by Klapper et al. (2020) was the extent to which SE differs from conventional entrepreneurship at the level of both values and praxis. Seeking to characterise the shape of the SE literature using bibliometric methods as well as a thematic analysis, Anand et al. (2021) identified 299 articles over the period from 2002 to 2020 and five categories of papers: A ‘pioneer’ group of 22 papers, a ‘process’ group with 18 papers, 20 papers in a so-called ‘insurgent’ group, 8 papers in a ‘tracking the field’ group and a final group in the ‘periphery’. The authors found that most of the research in SE comes from the US and European context, whereas US scholars laid earlier foundations, and European scholars have been doing very significant developmental work. While most studies focus on small businesses and on individual entrepreneurs, some of whom are seen as change agents, many papers are purely conceptual, leaving unexplored potential for empirical work. Anand et al. (2021) suggest that in particular social entrepreneurship research has the po- tential to inform SE with regard to evaluationand management of social activities of entrepreneurs. Overall there is no reference to SEE in the foregoing authors’ work. Common ground between entrepreneurship and sustainability may be the concept of longevity, assuring long lasting goods, values or services: preserving current resources for future generations (sustainability) and developing unique solutions for the long run (entrepreneurship) (Greco & de Jong, 2017; Klapper & Upham, 2015). Klapper et al. (2020) also highlight how in practice a commitment to quality among entrepreneurs can also blend into sustainability norms. However, the question must be raised as to whether the significant focus on opportunity spotting and exploitation does not run contrary to a more long-term thinking as is required for sustainable development. Greco and de Jong (2017) critically conclude that SE is rather about creating a positive impact in our societies, as products/services created for longevity might be both unrealistic and environmentally damaging. The next section provides a foundation against which SEE needs to be understood. 3. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), responsible management education (RME) and sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE) Given the need to transform our societies and reform existing socio-economic and political structures to create responses to the social and environmental/ecological challenges we face, we argue that SE and hence education thereof has the potential and indeed a responsibility to help bring about lasting change. Following Bell (2016), Dyllick (2015) and Sipos et al. (2008) we take the position that education for the 21st century needs to be transformational in nature, with sustainability as a goal, including in EE. In fact, entre- preneurship is already positioned in relation to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), championed by international bodies for the last decade (Unesco, 2021; Wals, 2011). For UNESCO, ESD is intended to empower learners of all genders, ages, both present and future generations, with knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to take informed entrepreneurial decisions and make responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society (Unesco, 2021). Emphasising the link between the individual and society, entrepreneurship, sustainability and justice as well as the imperative to endow learners with appropriate knowledge, skills, values and competences, situates entrepreneurship within a sustainability frame. There are several literatures that are closely related to the topic of SEE. One of them is the very significant body of literature on sustainability education, also referred to as education for sustainability (ESD), a full review of which is beyond the scope of this article. An evaluation of the latter literature is available: see for instance Aboytes and Barth (2020), Evans (2019), Dal Magro et al. (2020), R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 4 O’Flaherty and Liddy (2018), Wieck (2011 a/b). Based on a comprehensive literature review, O’Flaherty and Liddy (2018, p. 1043) concluded that in ESD many educators still rely on traditional methods such as lectures. O’Flaherty and Liddy (ibid) hence take the view that there is much room for alternative approaches, emphasising that different learning outcomes, such as understanding a body of knowledge and becoming inspired to be a change agent or activist, need to be matched with correspondingly different evaluation criteria and educational methods. Indeed there are clear connections between ESD and transformational learning. ESD is intended as a lifelong learning process that ‘enhances the cognitive, social and emotional and behavioral dimensions of learning. It is holistic and transformational, and encompasses learning content and outcomes, pedagogy and the learning environment itself’ (Unesco, 2021). ESD and associated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are intended to be instrumental in transforming society, embedding environmental education in the broader context of socio-cultural factors and the socio-political issues of equity, poverty, democracy and quality of life. Dal Magro et al. (2020) is one of the few examples to use Freire’s critical pedagogy in conjunction with service learning to explore learning experiences in the context of an experiential learning experience in Brazil. Another key body of literature of relevance to SEE is that on responsible management education (RME) - see for instance (Bek- meier-Feuerhahn et al., 2018, Cornuel & Hommel, 2015, Doherty et al., 2015, Dyllick, 2015, Rasche et al., 2013; Walmsley et al., 2019). However, whereas much can be learned from the way in which sustainability is taught in management faculties in terms of How, What, Why, To Whom, the key point of distinction is that management and entrepreneurship, while related, are also quite different practices. While RME does have a strong focus on ethics and values in the management context (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn et al., 2018), it differs from SEE in that the latter holds the promise of being more holistic in its approach, encompassing environmental, economic, social and values-oriented dimensions. 3.1. Sustainable entrepreneurship education (SEE): An understudied area Arguably, SE, including the well-recognised contribution of entrepreneurship to alleviating poverty through necessity entrepre- neurship (Shepherd et al., 2020), has the potential to contribute to equity, democracy and quality of life for many millions of people in the world. Yet, this requires relevant education and educational establishments, including business schools, that provide education and training in line with these new imperatives. As Dyllick (2015, p. 17), we see business schools as risking their legitimacy if they cannot supply solution-oriented education, where solutions relate to the challenges of multiple global crises. This also applies to entrepre- neurial curricula, which typically include little reference to sustainability (Wyness et al., 2015), which we define as at least incor- porating values relating to both society and environment (Herman & Bossle, 2019, p. 5). To date a limited number of studies have made the link between entrepreneurial intention and sustainability. Kuckertz and Wagner (2010) examined the link between students’ entrepreneurial intentions and orientation towards sustainability values, finding the two variables to be negatively correlated among students. Klapper and Farber (2016) examined the impact of two pedagogical experiments in the context of SEE in the Latin American context. In a later study involving learning journeys for SE, organised by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), Klapper et al. (2021) used George Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory in conjunction with Sipos et al. (2008) organising principles of Head, Hands and Heart to assess the impact of the learning journeys on the participants. We argue that the challenge of sustainability requires transformational approaches to learning, and we propose Freire’s pedagogy as capable of underpinning this, given its correspondence with the critical pedagogical goal of developing a ‘critical consciousness’ in learners that challenges the legitimacy of oppressive institutions and practices (Mejia, 2004). The underlying aim is to empower learners to develop their human consciousness to reflect critically upon such practices. However, Freire’s pedagogy requires inter- pretation at the fine-grain level of the classroom. Freire’s philosophy is stronger on questions of why and to what ends, but gives less attention to how (Dal Magro et al. (2020), Verduijn and Berglund (2020). Of course, it was also not a responseto the need for SE specifically, but a response to the need for societal transformation more generally. Although the ESD literature is large and provides a rationale for SE pedagogy, the literature on the latter itself is small. This is despite the proliferation of courses and programmes centered on the subject of SE. For instance, in a bibliometric study using the Web of Science (WoS) to conduct a systematic search using keywords such as SE, sustainability entrepreneurship, sustainable venturing and sustainable start-up (Moya-Clemente et al., 2021), 761 documents were found (710 of which were articles, 51 reviews) published in the period from 1968 to 2019. Yet in the latter study there were no papers on SEE among the 20 most cited papers. The latter results were similar to that of Anand et al. (2021), who conducted an augmented bibliometric study covering SE research. In an extensive literature review by Greco and de Jong (2017) on the topic of SE, there were no suggestions for research avenues in relation to SEE. One of the few studies examining the link between students’ entrepreneurial intentions and orientation towards sustainability values, Kuckertz and Wagner (2010), found the two variables to be negatively correlated among students. To remedy this situation Kuckertz and Wagner (2010) propose case examples of SE as motivational tool to engage and inspire students in reflections for pursuing an entrepreneurial career as options for increasing the likelihood of sustainable entrepreneurial intention. As mentioned, in a Latin American context Klapper and Farber (2016) investigated the effects of contrasting pedagogies of SEE among postgraduate MBA students at a Peruvian Management School. They found that students involved in experiential learning experiences increased in entrepreneurial attitudes and intention, at least in the short run. They argued that this has implications for entrepreneurship and social enterprise teaching, particularly regarding the design and implementation of training involving high-engagement, de-routinised interventions. Overall, though, there is paucity of studies relating directly to SEE, including its prevalence and efficacy. Indeed, impact evaluations seem to be absent from the literature. Questions relating e.g. to mindset or attitudinal changes seem to have attracted little to no attention. This suggests that research on SEE is slowly emerging and that there is room for investigating the impact of diverse pedagogical approaches and tools and their effect on the learners’ mindsets, the educators, R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 5 and their relationship. Equally important is the overall impact of such teaching on the wider organisational and societal context, given the multi-perspectival nature of sustainability and its associated SDGs. 3.2. SEE and the need for social change The above section primarily related to the level of the individual learner, but we take the view that education for SE should aim at the transformation of societies. If so, how should this happen? Should we integrate SE into existing higher education frameworks, or do we need to consider a transformation of our potentially outdated educational systems, which in some contexts have arguably come under strain due to the increased marketisation of higher education? To give justice to the newly emerging realities triggered by both the pandemic and an escalating climate change crisis, we need to create education for SE that offers, at least, the possibility of a deep transformation of the paradigmatic and pedagogical ways we have traditionally been using in our EE, which also raises questions about the design of learning environments and contexts (Dehler et al. (2001). Following from this, given that educating for SE cuts across disciplines and hence raises complex questions regarding how (and even whether, or to what extent) it can be taught, key questions being those such as: How can we teach SE? How can we educate sus- tainable entrepreneurs? require deep examination. Arguably, conventional approaches to teaching need to be modified for the 21st century and as the OECD points out, there is a large gap between the evidence on effective learning environments for the 21st century and what still happens in our schools and classrooms (Milton, 2015). As Bell (2016) advocates, the old transmission model of teaching and learning is outdated and requires new pedagogies supporting transformational education. For the authors, 21st century education is of transformational nature instead of serving the unsustainable economic system of the 20th century (Dehler et al., 2001). As a result, sustainability needs to play a central role in all educational efforts, but especially EE (Lans et al., 2014; Wyness et al., 2015). We have said that Dyllick (2015, p. 17) sees business and management schools putting in danger their legitimacy, if they cannot be a provider of solution-oriented education to the global sustainability crisis. This suggests that there is an imperative for business and management schools to educate responsible leaders, through educational curricula that include both ethics, entrepreneurship as well as sustainability standards. What is required is to enrich EE with sustainability content and pedagogical methods that leave the necessary room for students and educators to develop their thinking, their behaviour and their overall SE mindsets. As Lans et al. (2014) argued, sooner or later, all educational efforts will need to adapt towards sustainability, responding to the needs of our planet and the voices of the new generation, using educational infrastructure. At issue is how to do this – what should be the goals, methods and pedagogical philosophy – while recognising that there is room for a plurality of views here. Wyness et al. (2015) examine sustainability within the educator context and whereas this seems to be a somewhat relatively well acknowledged issue, they take the view that most educators do not seem to make great efforts to create sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial curricula. The hedonistic approach of current EE in particular clashes with the integration of sustainability, which also incorporates value for society and environment (Herman & Bossle, 2019). Again, the transformation of EE seems to be essential to improve towards sustainable values. Lans et al. (2014) describe sustainability and EE to be anchored in different fields, with low efforts to explore the area between both fields or attempts to integrate them from an educational point of view. Wals (2011) understands ESD to be a methodological toolbox for meaningful education. It therefore does not compete with other forms of education but should complement them. Thus, although few scholars have yet sought to deepen the understanding of the impact of SEE on learners (a notable exception is Klapper et al., 2021), there would nonetheless seem to be a case for combining aspects of EE and ESD mean- ingfully, with both areas contributing to the methods and knowledge used when creating SE courses. In our view, Transformative Learning Theory (TLT) has much to offer in terms of theoretical and practical approaches to teaching SE, including the development of mindsets open to the creation of entrepreneurial ventures oriented towards sustainability. Turning to the type of philosophy of knowledge that would be appropriate here, we find Shotter’s (2006) withinness philosophy and practice a suitable rationale for understanding and teaching entrepreneurial practice from the inside, at the interface with sus- tainability (Klapper, Oberstrass & Upham 2020). Writing from a phenomenological standpoint, Shotter (2006) argues thatone can only truly know an empirical subject from the inside, through dialogue. Of course, this proposition raises questions regarding the value of abstract knowledge, but we think it appropriate for pedagogical contexts in which learning how to balance multiple objectives, including a strong normative position, is a priority. Those seeking to practice SE must navigate not only the usual complexities of business and niche exploitation, but they must do so in ways that minimise adverse environmental and social impacts and that are ideally restorative in these respects (Lans, Blok & Wesselink 2013). This requires a thorough understanding of context. Who knows the context better than those embedded in it, whatever their normative stance? This is why we advocate that learners gain an under- standing of the subjective experience of their subject, as well as gaining other forms of knowledge, delivered in other ways such as through practitioners embedded at the interface of entrepreneurship and sustainability. Our approach also reflects a perspective from which the entrepreneur is viewed as more than a unit of economic activity, or as a fixed entity with implicit or explicit personality traits (Warren 2004). Instead, sustainable and other entrepreneurship is more real- istically understood as a complex, dynamic, field, centered on the lived experience of those who practice it. This is why we argue that pedagogy relating to the praxis of SE can learn from Shotter’s phenomenology, which privileges an understanding of lived experience. With this tripartite approach of bringing together Freire’s, Shotter’s and Sipos, Battisti & Grimm’s work we develop a pedagogical framework suitable for nurturing creativity and innovation that is intended to help educators go beyond merely cognitive dimensions, encouraging a deeper, dialogical connection with the phenomenon in question, here SE theory and praxis. R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 6 4. Transformational learning theory (TLT) As De Satpio (2017) notes, transformational learning theory (TLT), which has its intellectual roots in the work of Freire (1971, 71) and Mezirow (1978), has been the subject of much discussion at conferences, in journal articles, books and has been applied in multiple research projects as underlying theory. Indeed, Kevany (2007) asserts that transformative learning is an experiential educational strategy that involves interactive methods of teaching and learning; interactive in this context means that the proposed methods and techniques transform learning from passive to active processes and where power is shared between instructors and students. Following Mezirow (2000, p. 7–8) TLT is the “process by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets) to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action”. The focus is on the change of existing frames of reference, whereby an individual realises that that her perspective is no longer viable and decides to adopt a new perspective. This creates the foundations for the individual to reorganize the way in which she views herself and her relationships, even change her worldview. This makes it possible for her to change a situation through her own initiative (Mezirow, 1978). What is taken for granted is questioned, and privileges and marginalizing effects of organisational policies, practices and hierarchies are called into question (dal Magro, Pozzebon & Schutle 2020). In TLT managers, educators and citizens are asked to be responsible for shaping social and organisational realities and creating organisations that respond to such realities (Allen et al., 2019, p. 786) Scholars posit different learning stages within TLT. Baumgartner (2001, pp. 17–19), for instance, describes the transformative learning process as consisting of three main steps. First, an individual needs to be exposed to an impactful event or series of events. Second, they need to critically reflect and re-evaluate the assumptions and concepts that they have about the world and themselves. This reflection can lead to a transformational learning experience, which then allows the person to align their life according to new assumptions. Thus, transformative learning needs to be actively lived and may affect all areas of life. Of the various authors who have influenced the development of TLT, we focus on Freire’s work for its emphasis on societal-level change, which we translate as particularly (but not only) including the social dimensions of sustainability, notably poverty alleviation (SDG1) and a fairer distribution of resources (SDG10). Unlike Merzirow’s concept of personal transformation, Freire is much more concerned about social transformation with a focus on developing practical and theoretical approaches to emancipation through education. We will now turn to Paulo Freire’s work before we make a case for drawing on the Head, Hands and Heart framework of Sipos et al. (2008) and Shotter’s (2006) withinness thinking. 5. Paulo Freire’s educational model and pedagogy Moacir Gadotti (1994), a collaborator and contemporary of Paulo Freire, described him as a ‘man of his time’ who challenged some of the fundamental assumptions of schooling and education, including how knowledge is developed. He was key to providing the favourable conditions for many individuals, regardless of race, gender, class and caste, to liberate themselves from “their historically contingent and entrenched vocabularies to face up to their fallibility and strength as agents of possibility” (Gadotti, 1994: xiii). Born in Brazil in 1921 Freire experienced much social injustice, exclusion, discrimination and marginalization of part of the population, which prompted him to reflect critically about the role of education in liberating the ‘oppressed’ (Gadotti, 1994). Freire (1971) viewed education very differently to mainstream thinking about schooling: he viewed the relationship between education and liberation as complex and requiring dialogue with learners. He firmly believed that education reflects existing power structures between the dominant and the dominated, the oppressor and the oppressed in society and reflects the interests of those who hold power: hence education systems reflect and shape a society’s structure (Mejia, 2004). As a result, Freire questioned whether formal schooling could be expected to produce social change. In his view education is an instrument that reinforces and reproduces the capitalist class-structure. Hence the dilemma for Freire was of how to implement a liberatory education in a non-egalitarian society (Verduijn & Berglund, 2020). One of the biggest issues for Freire was that formal schooling is based on the very simplistic relationship between the teacher, who is the knowledge expert, and the learner who does not know. The teacher is the one who transfers or exports knowledge to the learner, who acts as a recipient for such knowledge. Freire argued that such knowledge transfer happens in a way that denies the validity of ontological and epistemological productions by the learner and the learner’s community. In fact, he called it an authoritarian and manipulative ‘banking’ pedagogy, which is “characteristic of education for domination” (Mejia, 2004, p. 66) and which silences the learners and disempowers them from having their ‘own histories’ (Freire et al., 1997, read in Akkari & Mesquida, 2008). Arguably, the Freirian curriculum is a ‘socially-centered curriculum’ based on the real lives of people. Freire’s messagehas spread to many educators worldwide and he remains one of the most influential educational scientists (Mejia, 2004; Verduijn & Berglund, 2020)). Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) is the pedagogy of people engaged in a struggle for their freedom, for their autonomy, for their emancipation. This pedagogy centered on learners is based on dialogue, the conscientisation, praxis and problem-posed/based learning, combining from Freire’s point of view action and reflection. We will now elaborate further on what Freire understood under these key concepts. As Verduijn and Berglund (2020) show, Freire’s work has been given some attention in entrepreneurship education contexts, promising a response to the need to revive traditional approaches to education. To date, however, as we document earlier, Freire’s pedagogy seems to have been neglected by the slowing emerging body on SEE research. R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 7 5.1. Freire on dialogue In contrast with a ‘banking’ approach to education, it is dialogue and ethically respectful interactions between educators and learners that are at the heart of Paulo Freire’s pedagogical approach (Freire, 2005; Mejia, 2004; Rugut & Osman, 2013). Waisbord (2020) emphasised that Freire’s humanist view on communication has provoked different reactions, in particular also in his home country. For Freire, communication and dialoguing is central to being a human and part of humanity (Aronowitz, 1993). It not only about stimulating critical consciousness; it is also a way to be human by understanding and acting with others. Freire’s understanding of dialogue suggests that no one exists in a void: humans de-and reconstruct themselves in social relations. While this is where Freire attracted much opposition, from his perspective, communication for liberation is an essential part of being human: the ability to reflect, challenge the ongoings and recognising one self’s and other’s role in this process were key to his thinking. Freire was deeply committed to humanist values, driving his quest to achieve social justice for everyone, regardless of race, background, nationality, gender (Freire, 2005, Moraes & Antunes, 2011). This is where Freire connects for instance to Kuckertz (2021), who points out a higher-order purpose of education that is applicable to both EE and our research context of SEE. Given the Humboldt university’s classical aims to promote education of self-starting, responsible individuals, and education that support individuals in building a character that accepts responsibility (Kuckertz, 2021), we see clear connections to Freire’s ideas of developing learners who have made sense of the issues surrounding him/her and who have decided to pursue their own solutions to these issues. 5.2. Freire on conscientisation The conscientisation is a key education/learning process from Paulo Freire’s point of view. It means a full awareness allowing the learner, engaged in a social practice, to position herself/himself regarding the socio-cultural reality that determines her/his existence and to get a deep, more critical understanding of this reality in order to have the potential possibility to act on it, and so to become an agent of social change and transformation (Mejia, 2004). In this pedagogical approach, teachers invite students into a dialogue and both parties become co-creators of knowledge. This is significantly different from ‘the banking concept of education approach’ where the focus is on knowledge transfer from educator to learner in an instrumental and hierarchical way (Verduijn & Berglund, 2020). The process of conscientisation also allows learners to discover themselves, take a step back and gain some distance, and finally to reflect on their existence, and realise that their actual present can and should be changed which is different from what dominant societal groups want them to believe (Mejia, 2004, p. 66). Conscientisation is fed by the educational relationship and is rooted in a dialogical pedagogy that involves experiential and theoretical knowledge. Ultimately learners are enabled to understand that the world or society is not fixed and there is much potential for transformation. It becomes possible for the learners (and educator) to imagine a new and different realities (Freire, 1998). Freire’s approach respects participants’ practices and utterances of their lived experiences (see also Verduijn & Berglund, 2020). This resonates strongly with Shotter’s work which we will expand on subsequently. First, we turn to praxis, while keeping in mind that we understand that societies and economies are not immutable in structure but are more or less open to transformation. With this assumption, it becomes possible to imagine a new and different reality (Freire, 1998). 5.3. Freire on praxis For Freire, learning is a continuous process that starts with action, is then shaped by reflection, which provides further impetus for action (Kirylo, 2011; Mejia, 2004; Souto-Manning, 2010). Learning thus aims to improve the learner’s capacity to act in the world and change it, which is significantly different from a role of acting as mere receptacles of knowledge. Change would come through a process of dialogue and reflection triggering action or intervention at different societal levels, even political, a process Freire referred to as praxis (Freire, 1973; Mejia, 2004). Such praxis would offer learners the opportunity to develop free, creative reflection and thoughtful action in order to change the world, leading to individual transformation in the process (Mejia, 2004). As a consequence, praxis education according to Bolin (2017) is uniquely equipped to challenge the status quo whilst actively engaging in alternatives. Learning in this sense is a continuous process towards the capacity development of learners to act in the real world, to take place and transform it. It is through action, dialogue, reflection and joint interventions of educators and learners that authentic learning, and we would add transformative learning, can be achieved. 5.4. Problem-based learning (PBL) While common educational parlance talks of problem-based learning, Freire mainly used the phrase problem-posing, an antithesis to ‘banking’ education (Mejia, 2004). The problem posed by the students and/or the educator, as well as the process of problem- atisation, are at the heart of learning situations. In a problem-posing situation and problem-based learning educational model, edu- cators and learners explore together problems, challenges or social realities that they have themselves identified, selected and assessed as relevant in order to turn them into learning situations (Mclaren, 2000). Educators and learners problematize situations together, analyse and discuss them based on their experiences, feelings and knowledge (Mejia, 2004; Rugut & Osman, 2013). The role of ed- ucators is not to provide answers to the problem posed, but to help learners develop and apply a form of critical thinking that promotes an increased conscientisation in relation to the selected situation (Freire, 1973; Rugut & Osman, 2013). As a result, learning can be better achieved through critical thinking and deep analysis of experiences, beliefs and feelings (Rugut & Osman, 2013), and as Mejia (2004) emphasises, the distinctions between the roles of the learners and educators become blurred, dissolving the teacher-student R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023)100729 8 distinction and therewith underlying contradictions. In line with the demands for a more holistic approach to SEE, we next turn to Sipos et al. (2008) Head, Hands and Heart approach, which has been experimented with by one of the authors in different international Higher Education contexts, both as an evaluative heuristic, and as the foundation for course creations in SE. 6. Sipos et al.’s (2008) Head, Hands and heart framework Transformative learning for sustainable development (Wals, 2011, p. 180) and sustainable entrepreneurship, need to go beyond the transfer of knowledge alone. Accordingly, here we draw on the framework of Sipos et al. (2008), the Head, Hands and Heart (HHH) framework. Responding to calls for changes to sustainability education, the authors. developed the framework of transformative sustainability learning (TSL), and its organising principles, head, hands and heart. They developed a pedagogical landscape based on their research of existing pedagogies in sustainability and transformative education, ranging from action learning, community service learning, critical emancipatory pedagogy, problem-based learning to traditional ecological knowledge, to name just a few. One of their aims was to better understand their relationships to each other. Using the organising principles of Head, Hands and Heart, which essentially is grounded in Bloom et al.’s (1964) learning domains, cognitive, psychomotor and affective, a three-sided ‘pedagogical landscape’ was developed where pedagogies are not necessarily fixed in their positions, yet their positions in the model are informative and their relative positions can be impacted by their particular practice. In these terms, we see Freire’ critical pedagogy relatively high at the Head dimension, such that it requires complementing with dimensions of hands and heart, together with Shotterian withinnes, to arrive at a holistic, integrated framework in line with the new socio-economic, environmental and societal challenges. The Head dimension relates to knowledge content, i.e., a cognitive dimension, and in the context of sustainable entrepreneurship education this could concern, for example, the need to establish a common understanding of the global climate crisis, or providing insights on how to finance a venture in this context. The second dimension, Hands, is a psychomotor dimension where the practical use of the knowledge is made. For example, learning how to conduct environmental life cycle analysis and applying this learning; crafting prototypes for an entrepreneurial pitching contest; or creating a collage to express learner perceptions of the concept of sustainable entrepreneurship, involving e.g. natural material. The affective, Heart, dimension is comprised of feelings and emotions, including motivation. Taking the example of the collage again, examples of practices to stimulate and engage with the affective dimensions of learning include accompanying the learners’ story-telling of their collage with music that they have either created or chosen: in general, use of music is a key route to engaging the heart dimension of learning, as is following Freire’s approach of having the learner choose the specific topic of learning, such that engagement and motivation are high. To date, the HHH model has been applied in various contexts and in varying degrees of depth, ranging from chemistry education (Fisher 2019), legal education (Doran, 2016), to more specific studies, the education of children (Wilkinson & Bencze, 2015) and young adults (Jagannathan et al., 2018). The HHH Model has also been used in the context of future leader education. Wright (2015) uses it to discuss ethics and behaviour of leaders in the context of business education by using the relatable example of cheating among students in his classroom. He reports deep changes within course participants in terms of a cessation of cheating and other behaviour, with an expectation of spill-over effects in future (ibid). Some initial work in the context of SEE specifically has been conducted by Klapper et al. (2021), where two learning journeys, organised by the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT), were assessed using George Kelly’s (1955) repertory grids, to tease out participants’ perception of their learning in conjunction with the principles of Head, Hands and Heart used to organise the analysis. The authors found that all three dimensions of learning were of value to the participants, yet the heart dimension was the one with the most subjectively reported impact. Jones (2018) also contributed to the debate around the need to engage the heart, mind and hands to enable students to develop entrepreneurial agency and argued that this would be difficult without being exposed to different learning environments and disorienting dilemmas, which would strengthen their disposition to sustain themselves in an increasingly uncertain world. Finally, Sipos et al. (2008) approach has also been employed in unpublished work within the context of an undergraduate pro- gramme at a British university to assess the contents of a short course in sustainable entrepreneurship, and more extensively employed at a German university within the framework of professional school offering postgraduate executive programmes. The HHH framework was used to assess student work. Given our view that a transformative pedagogy should be one that engages deeply with applied contexts and practitioners, to understand their perspectives from the inside, we turn next to John Shotter’s approach to practitioner engagement. 7. Shotter’s withinness rather than aboutness thinking Following review work by Verduijn and Berglund (2020), much is known about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education. Yet despite this wealth of information, the authors point out that there are still blind spots and dominating trends in our understanding of what EE should be. Here we argue for the integration of Shotter’s (2006) ‘Withinness’ thinking to support the flow of learning by both developing dialogical relationships with practitioners; complemented by the Freireian under- standing of supporting learners in learning what accords with their own values and what is meaningful to them (Klapper & Neergaard, 2017; Refai & Higgins, 2017). Shotter was a critical management scholar whose work is probably best summarised by himself as: “I shall take it that the basic practical moral problem in life is not what to do but [who] to be …” (Cunliffe, 2018, p. 2). Shotter’s wanted both the researcher and the educator to move away from mainstream ways of researching, teaching and being an academic, manager or leader. Instead, he promoted reflection “about what it means to be human in the world – and being human means thinking about ourselves in relation with others. As Cunliffe (2018, p.2) concludes, “the need to think about these issues and about relationality is central to John Shotter’s R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 9 work”. In particular, Shotter’s early work (e.g., Shotter, 1993) focused on how organisational ‘realities’ emerge in everyday con- versations and interactions and how managers act as practical authors of those realities (Cunliffe, 2018). Bearing in mind that the many learners that we teach aim to become managers at the end of their studies, Shotter’s request for more reflection and critical thinking about what it means to be human, also in relation to others, and how this relationality impacts organisational realities, is an important perspective for SEE and business and management education generally. One of the key concepts of Shotter’s work is the so-called ‘thinking-from-within’or ‘withness thinking’ (Shotter, 2006, p. 585), which is part of his original reasoning that we need a ‘different form of engaged, responsive thinking, acting, and talking that allows us to affect the flow of processes from within our living involvement with them’. Shotter (2005) notes that Wittgenstein (1953) had already made the argument that the meaning of our words is to be found in their use; ‘let the use of words teach you their meaning’. In Shotter’s words, this means that while we can study an already completed, ‘dead’ structure from a distance, seeking to understand the pattern of past events that caused it to come into existence, we can enter into a relationship with its living form and, in making ourselves open to its movements, find ourselves spontaneously responding to it. Thus, instead of seeking to understand phenomena in terms of explanatory theory that we bring to the phenomena, we can come to understand a living form in quite a different way, to understand it in terms of its meaning for us and with us, in a dialogical, processual way. It is only from within our involvements, our engaged meetings with other living things, that this kind of meaningful, responsive understanding becomes available to us (Shotter, 1993). Working with Shotter’s concept of withinness thinking challenges both the learner and the educator to move away from – or at least supplement - the traditional ‘banking concept of education’, where the educator is the one who ‘knows’, who dominates the educator/ learner relationship in the process of knowledge acquisition, transfer and exchange. Freire (1973) argued that such forms of education prevent learners from ‘knowing’ the world and seeing it as something which can be transformed. Ultimately this inhibits the liberation and freedom of the oppressed. Shotter asks the educator and learner to challenge their own positions vis-à-vis (here) SE, and explore the meaning of the latter further through a pedagogical process where, through contact with the phenomenon in question, i.e. SE and entrepreneurs practising this, deeper awareness of the phenomenon, curiosity as to its nature, co-creation, as well as entrepreneurial action can follow. In short, Shotter asks for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon through being in touch with practice, with the lived experience of both entrepreneurship and sustainability. Arguably, this can promote mindset changes at individual, organisational and potentially societal level, different from the traditional banking concept of education, consistent with Freire’s critical pedagogy, complementing it philosophically and practically by offering a perspective on the value of dialogue with praxis for the learner. 8. Integrative educational model and pedagogical propositions for sustainable entrepreneurship education Drawing on the above, we bring together Freire’s educational model, Sipos et al. (2008) Head, Hands and Heart approach and Shotter’s (2005,6) withinness thinking to make propositions for SEE: 8.1. Pedagogical proposition #1; Refocus the pedagogical objectives on the transformation and emancipation of learners Dehler et al. (2001) argue that pedagogical objectives should be rooted in a critical perspective of teaching/learning in HEIs and should target alternative ways of emancipation, supporting learners to be free from taken-for-granted ideas and assumptions circu- lating in the field. Unlike traditional management education which prioritises knowledge transfer and which Freire calls ‘banking education’, HEIs should involve the learners in interactive and iterative situations of deconstructing, reconstructing (Freire, 2005; Mejia, 2004) SE, whilst creating space for invention in the classroom. All these objectives are learner-centered and aim at developing the critical mind of the learners and their capacities to learn differently in order to prepare them to become more discerning and aware actors, in their context, facing uncertainty and complexity of the world (Dehler et al., 2001). Hence such education is transformational and emancipatory in character, and learners and educators are part of this process. Putting the learners into the driver’s seat fostering their independence, critical thinking and individual responsibility has much in common with an andragogical approach advocated by Neck and Corbett (2018). 8.2. Pedagogical proposition #2: reshape the relationship and the quality of interactions between educators and learners When examining the (S) EE, we find that very little research has focused on the role of the educator in the learning process, with notable exceptions including Hannon (2018), Neck and Corbett (2018), Wyness et al. (2015): yet Freire (1973) emphasises the key role of the educator in shaping and reshaping the relationship with learners. In fact, in Freire’s view, educators and learners, who are engaged in authentic learning situations and learning processes through dialogue, benefit from changes to educational roles where power is de-centered, i.e. not placed solely with the educator. This is very similar to Dehler et al. (2001) who argue that critical pedagogy asks for changes to educational roles, curricular content and classroom practice, implying a de-centering of power in the classroom. As a result, disciplinary borders may dissolve or can be overcome and issues can be problematised. As a result, the edu- cator’s role is not that of a knowledge transmitter, nor a coach or a tutor. She/he is a facilitator who is designing and setting up the learning situations and conditions. The educator should be an awakener of consciousness (Freire, 2005) who is playing a role of mediator vis-a-vis the context, in which the learners are involved, directing to relevant theoretical and empirical knowledge. She/he helps the learners to improve their reading and understanding of the world they are living in and where they should take positions to act and transform it. In this process, the educator is also the one who learns, and the learner is also the one who teaches, which is an innovative way of looking at the R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 10 educator/learner relationship. Through a dialogical relationship, both parties are emancipating themselves and the educator partic- ipates in making the learners aware of realities, challenges, and opportunities in their environment (Dal Magro et al., 2020), and of their capacities to orient themselves in the world and to create/identify entrepreneurial opportunities depending on their values and life aspirations. They are jointly responsible for the process in which they grow. In the context of RME Walmsley et al. (2019) highlight the need to develop responsibility in EE; students must develop the capacity to think for themselves, critically question the status quo and come up with solutions for integrating the notion of responsibility into new ventures. We agree that one of the key roles of the educators is, through their active listening, to develop empathy and reflective questioning abilities in the learners so that they can improve their understanding of the self, notably at the level of their fundamental values, their personal and professional aspirations and finally their capacities to achieve the latter. 8.3. Pedagogical proposition #3: Redefine the learning situation through the problem-posing/problem-based learning pedagogy As Freire (2005) argues, in problem-posing education, educators and learners alike are beings in the process of becoming—with a likewise unfinished reality. Both humans and their unfinished character and the transformational character of reality underline the necessity for education to be an ongoing activity (Freire, 2005),which led Freire to conclude that ultimately ‘education is constantly remade in the praxis’ (2005, p.89). Whereas in the banking method of education, the focus is on permanence and such education is reactionary in nature, ‘a problem-posing education—which accepts neither a “well-behaved” present nor a predetermined future—- roots itself in the dynamic present and becomes revolutionary’ (Freire, 2005, p. 89). The choice of problems should be made taking into consideration their proximity with, and their meaning for the learners, by helping them emerge through discussion, or exposing the learners to impactful events. In this process educators and learners co-create. Problems should not be too structured or simple, as they would reduce the space and potential for dialogue and co-construction of knowledge. For Freire (2005), the educator must avoid being too directive and remain in her/his role of mediator. The dialogue and contextualized learning around a situation focused on a problem allow the learners to have the freedom to drive the learning process and choose real life problems, thus avoiding knowledge imposition and pure knowledge transfer (Mejia, 2004). In problem-posed learning pedagogy, the learning dynamics are strongly dependent on dialogue between learners, and between learners and educa- tors. Learning is also influenced by the mix and order of pedagogical sequences: individual reflection, team working, plenary dis- cussions that promote the involvement of the learners in the learning process. Authentic, meaningful problems raise questions and interactions, open up room for dialogue and stimulate learning. Collaborative work energizes and feeds interactions, involving both the educator and learner in a process of learning and conscientisation (Freire, 2005). 8.4. Pedagogical proposition #4: Give more attention to the concept of meaningfulness within the context of problem-based/problem-posed learning The concept of meaningfulness needs further consideration if it is to be determined with the learner. Reviewing the literature of meaningfulness, Rosso et al. (2010), for instance, identify core elements as: a) meaningfulness is subjectively defined by each person; b) can comprise numerous domains including beliefs, values, attitudes, as well as social and cultural norms. Meaningfulness cuts across various disciplines and is a concept also found in psychological and sociological literature. As Rosso et al. (2010) and Glavas (2012) emphasise, meaningful work allows employees to feel more whole, it makes them more motivated and there is greater alignment between employees’ and organisational values. Applying the concept of meaningfulness to the context of problem-based or problem-posed learning in SEE, we argue that meaningfulness needs to consider learners’ motivation and willingness and ability to create value for themselves and others. What they learn, how they learn, where they learn and with whom they learn (Refai & Klapper, 2016) need to be meaningful to them, promoting both the integration of entrepreneurial and sustainability-oriented thinking in their every-day lives. This supports the need for developing different perspectives on how entrepreneurs think, decide and behave (Fayolle, 2013; Jones et al., 2018), as well as the need to stimulate unique learners with entrepreneurial mind-sets that are capable of deciding not only what they want, but also why and how (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Fayolle, 2013; Gibb, 2002). 8.5. Pedagogical proposition #5: Design learning interventions that involve close dialogue with praxis Both entrepreneurship and sustainability are generally studied from a distance, with researchers seeking to build and test research questions to create explanatory theories for entrepreneurship. Yet, following Shotter (2006), it is only from “within” that we, the learners and also educators, through our involvement, our engagement with both entrepreneurship and sustainability engage with the ‘living thing’. As Freire (2005) proposes, through problem-based/posed projects, students engage with entrepreneurship as a living thing and arguably a more meaningful and responsive understanding of the subject matter will emerge. Through engagement with SE, the “living form” in Shotter’s words, the learner, and arguably also the educator, would enter into dialogically structured relations with SE (Shotter, 2006, p. 585). Yet, as Shotter and previously Wittgenstein (1953) highlight, let the use of entrepreneurship in the context of sustainability teach its meaning. Through such problem-based learning as envisaged by Freire, learners would have the opportunity to engage with the phenomenon of SE and its effects, with the possibility of appreciating the need to understand what it means to ‘be’ a sustainable entrepreneur (Hjorth, 2004). Integrating both Sipos, Battisti & Grimm’s Head, Hands and Heart organising principle and Shotter’s withinness thinking into Paulo Freire’s conceptualisation, we arrive at a new framework for teaching SE. What we still need, however, are pedagogical tools that connect with the head, hands and heart, as well as support dialogue between the different elements. To address the former, one option R.G. Klapper and A. Fayolle The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100729 11 is to draw on the creative arts and techniques that encourage reflection – such as theatre, role play, music, mindfulness, yoga and other physical and creative activities. These variously engage the affective side of learners; encourage them to realise their authentic, rather than socialised selves; and help them connect their inner and outer worlds (see for instance Klapper & Neergaard, 2017). Fig. 1 summarises how Freire’s key concepts, applied in the context of SEE would benefit from both Shotter’s withinness thinking and Sipos, Battisti & Grimm’s Head, Hands and Heart heuristic. In the centre of the model, we locate SEE that has been created ac- cording to the four main concepts of Freire’s critical pedagogy: dialectical, praxis, problem-based/posing and conscientisation, with head, hand and heart dimensions infusing all four domains. Shotter’s work on ‘thinking from within’ acts as an overarching guide that challenges the learner to explore and experience the essence of the phenomenon of SE, with its difference facets at different times, while maintaining Freire’s critical pedagogy. Arguably, the conceptual model in Fig. 1 has relevance both for EE, SE (which is the main topic of this research) and potentially RME. In EE Shotter’s work has already found application in Klapper and Refai (2015), who explored the relevance of Shotter’s (2006) work on ‘aboutness’ and ‘withness’ thinking and found it be relevant in the context of EE as the learner learns from ‘inside the en- trepreneur’s mind’ or through ‘withness’ thinking. The underlying purpose of such teaching is for the student to experience the ‘lived experience’ of entrepreneurs to acquire ‘a second kind of knowledge’ (Shotter, 2006, p.585), a ‘subsidiary awareness of certain felt experiences as they occur to us from within our engaged involvement’ (Shotter, 2006, p. 586) in order to combat the prevailing ‘aboutness’ thinking’. Klapper et al. (2020), Oberstrass (2020) and Klapper et al. (2021) have applied both Shotter’s withinness thinking and Sipos et al. (2008) Head, Hands and Heart together as part of a theoretical foundation for exploring SE in theory and practice. Still, more experimentation and research is necessary though, in particular involving the integration of Freire’s critical pedagogy as a theoretical foundation in the construction and evaluation of learning experiences. 9. Conclusion SEE occurs at the intersection of education, sustainable development
Mais conteúdos dessa disciplina
A gestão escolar democrática no Brasil é um princípio fundamental, garantido pela Constituição Federal de 1988 e pela Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB 9.39496), que preconiza a part- A gestão escolar democrática no Brasil é um princípio fundamental, garantido pela Constituição Federal de 1988 e pela Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB 9.39496), que preconiza a part
- Com base no cenário apresentado e considerando o conteúdo dos materiais didáticos sobre gestão escolar democrática docx (3)
- Com base no cenário apresentado e considerando o conteúdo dos materiais didáticos sobre gestão escolar democrática docx (2)
- Com base no cenário apresentado e considerando o conteúdo dos materiais didáticos sobre gestão escolar democrática docx (1)
- Com base no cenário apresentado e considerando o conteúdo dos materiais didáticos sobre gestão escolar democrática docx
- ATIVIDADE 1 - PED - GESTÃO ESCOLAR E ORGANIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO PEDAGÓGICO - 54_2025 docx (4)
- ATIVIDADE 1 - PED - GESTÃO ESCOLAR E ORGANIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO PEDAGÓGICO - 54_2025 docx (2)
- ATIVIDADE 1 - PED - GESTÃO ESCOLAR E ORGANIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO PEDAGÓGICO - 54_2025 docx (1)
- ATIVIDADE 1 - PED - GESTÃO ESCOLAR E ORGANIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO PEDAGÓGICO - 54_2025 docx
- FOCO086
- ESTÁGIO CURRICULAR EM PEDAGOGIA III GESTÃO EDUCACIONAL E ESPAÇOS NÃO ESCOLARES
- ESTÁGIO CURRICULAR EM LETRAS III GESTÃO EDUCACIONAL E ESPAÇOS NÃO ESCOLARES
- O texto sugere adaptar o pensamento computacional ao Ensino Fundamental com cartões para ordem alfabética. Qual alternativa reflete corretamente o pil
- Dentre as etapas do planejamento educativo e com relação à etapa da avaliação, assinale a alternativa incorreta: Escolha uma opção: a. Existem mui...
- Questão 03 Com base nos textos apresentados, conclui-se que a gestão democrática da educação: I. Implica colocar as instituições a serviço da formação
- egundo Libâneo (2015, p.119), “[...] a autonomia precisa ser gerida, implicando uma corresponsabilidade consciente, partilhada, solidária de todos ...
- A gestão democrática se consubstancia quando: Grupo de escolhas da pergunta Delega à Coordenação Pedagógica da Instituição, a organização do seu...
- A escola democrática é estabelecida na Constituição Federal e na LDBEN 9394/96. Assinale o item que caracteriza uma escola democrática, conforme a ...
- De acordo com Vitor Henrique Paro, qual deve ser o foco principal da gestão escolar? *
- Responda à questão abaixo marcando a alternativa que complementa corretamente a frase: A teoria das causas naturais da doença... relacionava as ...
- a elaboração de um projeto que oriente as discussões e obtenção de informações ou coleta de dados deve ter como ponto de partida o marco referencia...
- Com relação às etapas do planejamento educativo, assinale a alternativa correta que demonstra a melhor ordem para realizar o planejamento: Escolha ...
- Conforme a supervisão escolar autocrática, marque a alternativa INCORRETA: A supervisão escolar autocrática caracteriza-se por um modelo de gestão...
- É composta pelas instâncias de formação, escolares ou não, em que há objetivos educativos explícitos resultantes de uma ação intencional institucional
- que Escolha uma opção: a. Desvinculado da escola; Vinculado à comunidade; N Vinculado ao ambiente escolar; Eternizado no mundo; e. Postulado no gov...
- REVISAO DE FISIOLOGIA
- Edital_FACEPE_19-2024_PBPG_2024-2_Resultado_Complementar1
