Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article investigates entrepreneurial marketing (EM) and use of business recovery frameworks within experiential learning cycles (ELC)s to investigate post-Covid learning techniques during the learning process. Three distinct post-graduate learner cohorts took part in the study consisting of part-time MBA entrepreneurs from the United Kingdom, part-time upGrad MBA students from India (managers and marketers in large firms) and full-time MCom (Masters in Commerce) marketing students in New Zealand. This inductive study uses coursework artifacts, student feedback with thematic coding, and analysis from live business projects. Use of the post-disaster business recovery framework led to deeper learning, increased understanding, and generation of insights and new knowledge. Both student learner and entrepreneurial marketer skills and competencies are evidenced as essential for business resilience and growth in post-pandemic environments, while the framework aided co-creation of learning between the student and the focal business. Implications for marketing educators are offered together with future opportunities for education research in the EM education, entrepreneurship education and marketing fields. The study will allow educators to understand the three student typologies, leading to effective and impactful pedagogy in EM education.

Keywords

experiential learning techniques learning approaches and issues marketing education issues client-based projects creativity/creative problem-solving skills/traits development in marketing education marketing management/strategy course content executive MBA/training level/type of education

The global pandemic has forced businesses to adapt rapidly to disruptions in the external environment. In such situations, marketers in particular, face unique challenges and must adapt their strategies to the changing circumstances. Balis (2021) notes that the pandemic challenged critical truths about marketing where traditional views of customers, markets, and brands no longer work. Entrepreneurial marketing (EM) educators must therefore address this with some urgency or run the risk of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) producing students with talent but no experience of post-pandemic marketing. This will not only have a significant impact on the potential employability of marketing students, but also produce a shortfall of marketers able to develop adaptive marketing strategies in the face of severe market disruptions. This will then have a flow-on effect on businesses when the next unexpected crises or disaster strikes, and likely to significantly affect global and regional economies (US Small Business Administration, 2019 cited in Eggers, 2020).

Entrepreneurship education (EE) increasingly plays an explicit role in developments within HEIs globally as they endeavor to meet demand from governments for entrepreneurship and management education that provides industry and economically deprived regions with innovation to stimulate economies (Fada et al., 2017; Shinnar et al., 2009). Consequently, there are calls for a better focus on entrepreneurship and policy (Acs et al., 2016) where market failure can substantially impede growth (Fada et al., 2017).

The ability to become more opportunistic in order to cope with the dynamic changes in industries and markets post-pandemic has in recent times filtered down to management education where EE is highlighted as being key to offering much to management education. Ratten and Jones (2021, p. 9) found that “most existing studies are concerned with crisis planning and response without considering the intricacies of the experience. Therefore, research is required on how entrepreneurship educators learn from crisis and their knowledge management techniques” (Runyan, 2006 cited by Ratten & Jones, 2021). The role of entrepreneurship in marketing practice is highlighted by a recent study, which provides a useful analysis of EM education (Gilmore et al., 2020). This area of knowledge is supported by a plethora of research describing the essential tenets of the EM discipline as they relate to marketing (Hills et al., 2008; Kraus et al., 2010; Morris et al., 2002). Within this literature, there are wider calls for entrepreneurship to be further embedded within the marketing curriculum, and more firmly in public policy (Peltier & Scovotti, 2010). In addition, scholars also call for EM to be further embedded into HEI’s business and management curricula (Amjad et al., 2020; Gilmore et al., 2020).

A recent guest editorial in the Journal of Marketing Education by Mitchel et al. (2022) highlights areas of marketing education where more research is needed. This includes lack of provision of planning frameworks for delivery of marketing education, and a lack of research on student well-being post-pandemic. These are aspects of concern, which are also closely associated with gaps in knowledge identified by EE and EM researchers in our study. Amjad et al. (2020, p. 2) propose that resolving EM issues is central to the survival of entrepreneurs, highlighting a number of “practical, theoretical and pedagogical gaps” requiring attention. Focusing on pedagogical gaps, they identify that EM skills sets are lacking because of the mismatch between current pedagogies and the needs of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), with more approaches that are traditional and passive learning dominating. We agree with Catterall et al. (2002) suggesting that students be encouraged to critically engage with ideas and activities including challenging conventional marketing studies. Evidenced here is a requirement to develop EM curricula and models with clear focus on experiential and active-learning (Gilmore et al., 2020) with proactive marketing being critical to enable businesses to respond to the pervasive environment. EM education has to evolve to meet needs of all types of entrepreneurs, be they founders of start-up businesses, owner–managers, or executives. To meet these calls, our article seeks to address the following question: How do live business case studies using EM research frameworks encourage learners to develop their adaptive strategies to overcome pandemic-related impacts on their incumbent firms?

This article describes three different post-graduate cohorts from New Zealand (NZ), the United Kingdom (UK), and India studying EM and using EM frameworks during experiential learning. We first present the literature relevant to the study that covers EM, EE, and marketing, business recovery post-pandemic, and the role of experiential learning in teaching and learning. The “Method” section explains the teaching and learning activity and qualitative research design. The “Findings and Discussion” section justifies why use of the Entrepreneurial Marketing Post-Disaster Business Recovery (EMPDBR) Framework can be a useful tool for heightening insights during the experiential learning cycle (ELC). The conclusion includes recommendations for future applications of frameworks in enhancing experiential learning, research implications, and limitations for marketing educators, EM, and the EE discipline.

Literature Review

EM Education and the Crisis Context for Teaching and Learning

The article informs marketing education from the dichotomous lenses of entrepreneurship and marketing (Hansen & Eggers, 2010). EM has undergone significant evolution over the past 30 years with growing alignment to the critical importance of EM education particularly given the global nature and uncertainty of current economic environments (Amjad, 2020; Amjad et al., 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Miles et al., 2015; O’Connor, 2013). Despite the acknowledged progress and potential of EM, several recent studies have identified key issues for its continued development and focus that raises implications for educators (Alqahtani & Uslay, 2022; Amjad et al., 2020; Gilmore et al., 2020). In setting out research priorities for 2023–2026 based on interviews with researchers leading the field, Alqahtani and Uslay (2022) highlight contributions (e.g., promoting agility, flexibility, experimentation, engagement, and co-creation) in pursuing opportunities and deploying marketing activities being instrumental for navigating uncertainty. So, as EM educators, how do we ensure that we instill this into the learning experiences of our students?

Gilmore et al. (2020) report on implications and challenges for EM educators from presentations and discussion with participants at the 30th Global Research Symposium in Marketing and Entrepreneurship (now GRCME). Key questions are answered surrounding the focus of “what, how, where” and “who” of EM practices, described as interrelated aspects that constantly evolve. The “who” in delivering EM is critical for leading curriculum development and to what extent those delivering are capable of designing teaching and learning activities that can realistically reflect business challenges and environments. In essence, as Gilmore et al. (2020) suggest, the central concern is “how to disrupt, create the kind of environment that is responsive and have educators essentially behaving in a very entrepreneurial, very fast, iterative kind of way” (p. 195).

In educating students, how the various constructs within EM are articulated should be considered, noting the importance of tailoring EM to different types of business (Kraus et al., 2012). EM is appropriate and relevant not only for SMEs but also for larger organizations (Lodish et al., 2015) as these organizations need to be more entrepreneurial given shrinking resources and the rise of technologically sophisticated customers (Morrish et al., 2015). In identifying essential tenets of EM for generating practical insights, we also address calls for encouraging greater exploration of EM practices to meet gaps in knowledge related to theoretical development of EM and EE (O’Cass & Morrish, 2016; Vanevenhoven, 2013). We also build on the work of Alqahtani and Uslay (2022, p. 411) and EM future priorities (2023–2026) for the marketing/entrepreneurship interface (MEI) on the basis that “EM teaching practices have received little attention by scholars so far.”

EM studies highlight that a focus on entrepreneurial methods of marketing can provide various benefits that include an opportunity for new enterprise, creation of new markets, and innovative marketing strategies to overcome dramatic changes in business environments (Morrish & Jones, 2020). While experiential learning is a much-cited topic in the Journal of Marketing Education (JMED), there are recent studies that point to specific shortfalls in knowledge. For example, Satyam and Aithal (2022) describe a substantial “pedagogical pivot” that is required within ELCs to meet the demands of post-pandemic marketing practice. We propose this “pivot” should be at a granular level, with marketers being introduced to an entrepreneurial learning (EL) process through action-based learning on “live” businesses, not just on the “who” but on the “what,” the “how,” and the “where” (Gilmore et al., 2020). This “pedagogical pivot” and the need for entrepreneurial marketers to have “agility, flexibility, experimentation, engagement and co-creation” (Alqahtani & Uslay, 2022) require deeper critical thinking and reflection as described by Peltier et al. (2005) and their study of MBA students. Reflection here is described in the following four phases, “habitual action” (routine), “understanding” (basic tenets of what is presented, i.e., book learning), “reflection” based on personal experience and other knowns, and finally, “intensive reflection” (why they perceive and act as they do, changing firmly held personal beliefs, and changes in thinking). In the same vein, Catterall, et al. (2002) describe the need for learning, which is more critical with process-based active-learning using models and scrutiny of concepts and tools, leading students to “re-make” knowledge and to reflect and personalize the student experience when looking at marketing and reflective learning practice. We note that Satyam and Aithal’s (2022) research of marketing education utilizes D. A. Kolb’s (1984) framework to explicitly attend the unpacking of a “pedagogical pivot,” demonstrating use of EL during a crisis.

Entrepreneurial Education, the Crisis Context, and EL

As noted in the introduction, entrepreneurship scholars have summarized critical issues in a post-Covid education landscape. Ratten and Jones (2021) identify five main trends affecting business education: algorithms, service, assessment (objective learning outcomes to create a specialized learning experience), personalization, and problem-solving (changes to suit a specific individual, enabling better performance). Entrepreneurial education has also challenged traditional assumptions of how entrepreneurship is taught in respect to small business enterprise with the central argument being that while the methods may not change (judgment, critical thinking), the way we deliver may need transformation (Vanevenhoven, 2013), calling for more realistic methods, such as that demonstrated by learning on clinical practice.

For studies focusing particularly on large organizations, Kuratko and Morris (2018) advocate EL for enhanced learning with managers for developing corporate entrepreneurship (CE) strategies and an entrepreneurial health audit as a process tool for EL. The solution proffered will help develop an innovative workforce capable of corporate venturing and management with entrepreneurial capabilities. Throughout these discussions, there is a common focus in EE studies of learning from and through experience (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2019; Kassean et al., 2015). Scholars have also suggested that action/practice-based approaches have raced ahead of theory and that the role of action/experience/reflection for learning requires a more intensive discussion (Kassean et al., 2015). Hägg and Gabrielsson (2019) describe the evolution of EE research pedagogy and the knowledge in a systematic literature review, identifying a lack of connection between research and EE practice, and summarizing new calls by education researchers for further in-depth studies (Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Nabi et al., 2017).

Gabrielsson et al. (2020) describe development of research on EE pedagogy using bibliometric analysis that focuses on knowledge accumulation of EE pedagogy over time. Others support this view describing EE research as having a lack of evidence for knowledge accumulation within the field (Kakouris & Georgiadis, 2016). These authors highlight a shift in scholarly discourse from educator-guided models to more constructivist perspectives on EE, such as learnability with discussions focusing on theoretical basis of experience-based learning, the design of EE programs, and the meaning of education for both educators and students within entrepreneurship contexts. In a similar vein to Gilmore et al. (2020), coming from an EE perspective, Hägg and Gabrielsson (2019) suggest better connections are required in the experiential learning needs of students. They suggest that EE may benefit from acknowledging and integrating multiple theories of learning to develop a more holistic EL process perspective. This includes a move from didactic approaches toward embedding experienced-based learning and process-driven pedagogies with appropriate assessment (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2019, p. 844).

Reflective Learning

Further to the work of Peltier et al. (2005) and Catterall et al. (2002), Dahl et al. (2018) examine surface versus deep learning, articulating how value is co-created. This occurs through joint construction of knowledge with particular attention required to the dialectic nature of the process and the interplay of action, reflection, experience, and concept that becomes central to effective learning (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2017). Further calls in the EE literature ask for better educator understanding of these concepts to improve the critical thinking skills of students (Wurdinger & Allison, 2017). The recommended approaches are experiences, which provide a “scaffolded” approach to learning that is often lacking in reflective learning practice (Bell & Bell, 2020). There is also recognition that entrepreneurship curriculum needs to consider both the psychological and pedagogical needs of learners (Robinson et al., 2016). Our study touches on this area and the role of educators in supporting learner’s psychosocial development, taking into account emotional well-being.

As discussed earlier, trends in marketing education and EE continue to move toward active, experiential approaches. Consequently, there are calls within EM Education for deep learning that particularly takes specific business contexts into account (Gilmore et al., 2020). There are also further calls for greater transparency of educator assumptions that guide design and delivery of EL (Robinson et al., 2016) and closer engagement of theory and practice to inform what supports effective delivery of EE (Bell & Bell, 2020). Frontczak (1998) serves as a useful starting point, charting the development of EL over time and noting that most definitions emphasize the requirement for both experience and reflection. The most popular and frequently used model of EL is that developed by D. A. Kolb (1984), which draws from the work of Piaget (1954). Other influential learning theories that include a focus on action and change are action learning (Revans, 1982) and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991).

As the most established work, D. A. Kolb (1984) can be summarized as a cyclical process using four stages of concrete learning, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, with learners requiring essential skills across all elements to progress through the full cycle. Full cycle learning is problematic and it is widely recognized that EL often fails to capture the full potential of learning from experience (Frontczak, 1998; A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2017). Reflection on experience is considered a critical and integrative element of all EL (Hägg & Kurczewska, 2016; A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2017). In EE, reflection can “trigger” higher level learning (Cope, 2005); and becomes particularly necessary when working under conditions of high levels of uncertainty or during problem-solving (Neck & Greene, 2011). Schon (1983) distinguished between reflection in action, and reflection on action that brings a focus to what is emerging, sometimes referred to as the “experience of surprise” (in-action); as well as the process of looking backwards to acquire new understandings after an event has occurred.

Literature Summary

A review of the EM and EE literature reveals the value of EL in action-based learning for students in management, entrepreneurship, and marketing disciplines. Less information is known post-pandemic as to how to provide realistic scenarios that can be enacted, reflected upon, co-created with prior knowledge, and “re-made” by the learner. This study identifies EE and EL as vital in stimulating EM thinking, decision-making, and action with students while much more is needed on the “who” the “what,” the “how” and the “where” (Gilmore et al., 2020).

The ELC studies of A. Y. Kolb and Kolb (2017) provide helpful recognition in this teaching and learning theory discipline where certain tenets are established, noting more recent ELC summaries, such as Morris (2020). Of particular relevance to our study is the requirement for greater authentic learning experiences to support future practice of EM based on the work of Bell and Bell (2020) while reflective learning and teaching practice is intrinsic to the evaluation of our research project (Larrivee, 2000). While Satyam and Aithal’s (2022) article focuses on simulations with live case studies and responding to digital innovation as a result of the pandemic, we focus on how educators use “live” business studies and applied use of EM research frameworks to encourage learners to develop their own adaptive strategies to overcome pandemic-related impacts on their incumbent firms.

Method

Our study reports on the teaching and learning experiences of students and educators between 2021 and 2023, a period during and toward the end of the final wave of the pandemic in NZ, the UK, and India. As EM researchers and educators, we sought to uncover whether and how frameworks can encourage learners to develop their own adaptive strategies to overcome pandemic-related impacts on their incumbent firms. The vitality of successful business masters programs is incumbent on the fast response of the leading academics (Gilmore et al., 2020). As the three modules “Advanced Strategic Marketing” (ASM-NZ), “Leadership for Growth” (LFG-UK), and “Entrepreneurial Marketing Growth and Recovery” (EMGR-I) masterclass are led by scholars active at the Marketing and Entrepreneurship Interface (MEI), the module content was instinctively pivoted to take into account the radical focus required to deal with current organizational issues related to uncertainty and organizational resilience. Intrinsic throughout all three modules/lecture sessions were concepts, theories, frameworks, and models based within the domain of EM. Live projects in NZ and real business cases in the United Kingdom and India provided the experiential learning context.

This qualitative study design provided a useful method for examining three different groups of marketing student learning behavior: full-time marketing masters level students (ASM-NZ), part-time entrepreneur MBA (Masters in Business Administration) learners (LFG-UK), and part-time business and marketing professionals (EMGR-I). MCom (Masters in Commerce) students on the NZ program are presented with learning experiences that will prepare them for working in a range of small or large organizations and be able to act in a marketing consultancy role. Entrepreneurs on the UK program are on a unique leadership for growth part-time MBA individual program that allows them to carry out their research within their own businesses. Professional MBA students on the upGrad program are able to deploy new knowledge from their masterclass to their own, often very large organizations where they hold a strategic management, customer relationship, or marketing role. Table 1 shows the details for each cohort.

Table 1.

Summary Details of a Three-Country Study Cohort.

Cohort origin	Degree program	Module	Assessment method	Cohort details
NZ	Masters in Commerce (MCom)(full time)	Advanced strategic marketing	Formative assessmentsResearch projectoral presentation	16 postgraduate students
UK	Leadership for Growth MBA (part time)	‘Leading business growth’ capstone module before final project	Formative assessmentsIndividual courseworkOral presentation	17 small firms entrepreneurs
India	MBA—final UK immersion(part time)	‘Leadership for growth’ masterclass	Summative assessmentFeedback and group discussion	47 MBA students in senior management roles

The research presented is novel as one data set involves:

Marketing students with a range of knowledge and consultancy skill sets researching advanced marketing strategy in small business ventures (NZ).

Students who tend to be industry/technical experts and have experience as entrepreneurs, who may have less formal business education but work in or own growth focused businesses (UK).

Experienced managers and marketers.

The assessments allocated to students involved investigating and analyzing previous and current issues for their selected company (consulting within, working in, or owned) using qualitative research methods driven by personal student enquiry and collection of business information, and in the NZ case, semi-structured interviews. Based on the data collected, students were to offer proposals for future strategies for the business to resolve growth and resilience issues (especially prevalent during and post-pandemic).

A research protocol based on an abductive research design (Clark et al., 2021), guided the data collection, coding and analysis to extrapolate the “how” that is, what were the process and outcomes of the student learning experience using frameworks and “what” were the new knowledge, skills, and competences acquired during this process (Gilmore et al., 2020). Data collection also included module information, framework selection process within the ELCs, student’s action-learning process (containing framework application) and framework adaptations with student recommendations. Student post-experience feedback on the use of Morrish and Jones (2020) EMPDBR framework (see Figure 1) was also collected.

Figure 1.

EM Post Disaster Business Recovery (EMPDBR) Framework.

Artifact evaluation and data coding were performed using a priori theory topics informed by Gilmore et al. (2020). This distinguished what was useful in the use of framework as action learning and within the ELC and what was different to that recorded by Gilmore et al. (2020) post-pandemic.

“What” EM knowledge and core principles are required of marketers post-pandemic’—that is, EM concepts/theories, models, and frameworks adopted by students as being useful for articulating problems facing their organizations during and post-pandemic.

“What” skills/competencies are required of post-pandemic marketers?—that is, what did the use of EM frameworks/models within the action-learning process/ELC provide in terms of developing new skills/competencies in the context of marketing and management in pandemic situations?

‘How’—relevant to the teaching of EM post-pandemic, are the use of EM frameworks?

Data were collected, coded, and analyzed using thematic coding and analysis (Denzin, 2008), and there was cross sampling in each student cohort across the three research sites (Yin, 2015). The analysis aided understanding of experiences during the action-learning process and led to the identification of new skills/competencies acquired by the students. The data also informed the skills and competencies required of marketers, coded against EM theory, and in discussion with the researchers/educators. This then informed the “reflective” teaching practice providing educator insights in the manner of A. Y. Kolb and Kolb (2017), Peltier et al. (2005) and Catterall et al. (2002). We did not seek to draw direct comparison between groups of learners, as they were not deliberately selected for this exercise. However, observations were established with respect to the learners in three key areas:

The NZ cohort differed in that, they were full-time marketing students taught in a classroom setting researching a “live” small business, while the UK and Indian cohorts were asked to reflect and draw on personal knowledge of their own firm.

The students were studying for different master’s level degrees and expected to have different program learning outcomes, module learning outcomes, and employability aspirations.

Student reflections differed due to country of origin, noting the most severely impacted businesses by the pandemic were the upGrad students from India.

What, where, who is involved, and how the teaching and learning took place is explained in the following vignettes.

NZ MCOM Students Strategic Marketing Project

Under the supervision of an expert educator and researcher, the project investigates the strategic response of SMEs to the Covid-19 pandemic in a specified industry. This involved identifying a business (as a case) likely to yield unique insights. Students were required to critically evaluate their case company’s strategic marketing processes (analysis, development, and implementation) and discuss how these led to the success or failure of their strategic response to the Covid-19 pandemic. They were guided by a project brief that included continuous engagement with the lecturer and their peers over a 12-week semester. Course material and their relevance to their individual case companies were discussed weekly. The course content covered many strategic frameworks, including the Morrish and Jones (2020) EMPDBR framework that was the most popular model adopted by the students as a starting point in their investigation. Students conducted in-depth interviews and searched through company websites and news items to tighten their analysis and understanding of the business. Based on the situation and using literature, they were required to recommend future strategic directions that ensure long-term success (e.g., competitive advantage for superior performance) of these operations. Firms were able to engage with student projects, feedback on presentations, and benefit from consultancy reports provided by students.

UK MBA Entrepreneurs Small Growth Firms—‘Leadership for Growth’ Module

This program is a unique publicly funded executive MBA degree apprenticeship for entrepreneurs seeking business growth. The module is led by an educator with coaching expertise, an experienced educator and researcher and a specialist educator working with the students and their company. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the program was moved to online at the start of their program. This module was the first shared face-to-face teaching and learning experience. Although students were emotional and nervous at the start of the module, there was consensus that it was most enjoyable and worthwhile. As the entrepreneurs had been keeping their businesses going through the pandemic and lockdowns, it was appropriate to acknowledge and reflect on the previous year’s events on the first day of the module. To facilitate discussion, students were introduced to the Morrish and Jones (2020) paper on post-earthquake business recovery. Guided by elements of the paper’s EMPDBR framework, the entrepreneurs were asked to reflect both individually and in groups, how they navigated their business through the pandemic. Students were also introduced to the Entrepreneurial, Marketing, Innovation and Customer Orientation (EMICO) framework (Jones & Rowley, 2009), the Entrepreneurial Marketing Orientation (EMO) conceptual model (Jones & Rowley, 2011), and the 15 EM dimensions using a card-based game methodology (Jones & Rowley, 2012). The card-based method allowed students to individually assess their current firm orientation (firm focus) and whether they have a single, dual or balanced set of orientations (e.g., customer, marketing, innovation or entrepreneurial). During the intensive block delivery of the module (3 × 2 days of sessions), students were required to develop a presentation and complete the coursework. The presentation fed into the development of the coursework. The student entrepreneurs reflected on events during the past 12 months and provided strategic (EM-based) recommendations to overcome pandemic-related challenges. As this is a leadership-focused MBA, students were also asked to reflect on their leadership style during the pandemic, which was often emotional and illuminating.

“upGrad India” UK Immersion Week (“Leadership for Growth” Masterclass)

This session took place in a classroom setting using short lecture power point interactive and break-out sessions in moveable work spaces with supplies for individual and group activities. The first part of the session introduced students to the Morrish and Jones (2020) study and the immediate and severe impact of the earthquakes on individuals, businesses, and their markets. This provided thought-provoking evidence to students as to the immediate rather than long-term impact of a crisis. Guided by question prompts, time was allocated to elicit reflections on the disaster and subsequent business recovery in comparison with what they experienced during the pandemic in their firm, industry, and region in India. EM concepts were then introduced and discussed using the EMO model (Jones & Rowley, 2011), which explain the 15 fundamental EM dimensions related to customer orientation, market orientation, innovation orientation, and entrepreneurial orientation followed by the Morrish and Jones (2020) EMPDBR framework. Students were first allowed individual reflections followed by group discussions. The groups were formed for their heterogeneity rather than similarity to stimulate discussion. Based on each stage of the framework (using similar prompt questions as the NZ and UK cohorts), students were required to consider the following:

Describe your role, firm, and the industry in which your firm operates

What happened during the pandemic for you personally in your firm?

What impact did the pandemic have on your firm?

Firm response: What changes were instigated by the company and how?

Critique and discuss whether and how EM facilitated post-pandemic recovery (with particular focus on the four aspects of EM identified in the framework customer value, resources, opportunities, and risk).

Logic of Examining Frameworks for Adoption in Action-Learning and ELCs

Gilmore et al. (2020) reported that “experiential and action-based learning was vitally important for EM education” (p. 194), hence highlighting the intrinsic value of this teaching and learning approach. Although commonly used in EM teaching practice and with some reports of “pedagogical pivots” for post-pandemic marketing (Satyam & Aithal, 2022), we know little of the benefits of using frameworks in EL studies, which may inform EM education post-pandemic. Evaluation of frameworks for enhancing EM experiential learning practice requires a deeper investigation into how it can be a more holistic process, with the aim of becoming more entrepreneurial (Neck & Greene, 2011) when studying and deploying EM techniques and strategies (Schindehutte et al., 2009). We are of the view that the ELC offers an opportunity to study action-learning and reflection, and look at how use of frameworks serves as a trigger to deepen the authentic nature of learning, touching on emotional processing and psychological effects on the “lived experiences” of students engaged in EE.

Findings and Discussion

We report first on the process and outcomes of the student learning experience to evaluate the use of frameworks within experiential “action-based” learning (“how”) followed by the new knowledge, skills and competences acquired during this process (“what”). The “where” and the “who” is a summary discussion of the benefits of using live studies and empirical frameworks as pedagogical tools for deeper student engagement (Gilmore et al., 2020). Finally, we discuss how the study of post-disaster business recovery can inform marketing, EM, and EE education in post-pandemic environments.

How: Teaching EM Post-Pandemic

Marketing and management practitioners face unique challenges during and post-pandemic environments that require new entrepreneurial skills. So, how do educators provide learning environments with realistic pandemic experiences? Given the policy implications and guidance for practitioners, published empirical research needs to reach the classroom. Our study provides evidence that empirically based frameworks can offer pedagogical tools for learning with tangible benefits for students in terms of generating deeper insights during the ELC with an embedded action-learning process to follow. The following statements capture student evaluation of how the framework has enabled them to discern the wider business processes involved in post-pandemic recovery:

. . . helped me appreciate the work undertaken by business and management during and post-pandemic

. . . helped structure the impact, both the positive and the negative

. . . helped to illustrate and identify the post pandemic changes we need to make. . .reflections can be drawn on the basis that the framework is very effective

A student describing the following insights demonstrated how the framework’s application allowed for personalization and problem-solving (Ratten & Jones, 2021):

It was reflective, it helped me to analyse the choices made by the company, relevant and topical as it’s a situation we’ve all been in, and I have been through quite recently.

Co-creation activity (Alqahtani & Uslay, 2022; Dahl et al., 2018) is demonstrated between the student and the foci business in which the student is working:

. . . using the framework provides a good and structured approach . . . it provides wide perceptions that are two-way.

Therefore, an iterative process takes place between the framework dimensions and the fact-finding relating to each element, while working along the process that enabled students to produce their own analysis of business recovery. As one MBA Marketing Consultant observed,

The framework helped to sort out my thoughts into various categories. Using the framework, I was able to put firm adaptations to Covid into different stages.

Action-Learning Process

All student cohorts were presented with a range of EM theory, models, and frameworks. The UK and NZ cohorts had an open choice of framework and model selection to adopt. The student action-learning process that took place during the cycle is exemplified by the NZ’s students’ adaptation of the framework to a “live” business (see, e.g., Figure 2). They favored the EMPDBR framework as a core element of their experiential learning as they had a process to follow and could “enact” it in their own experience. Other models, for example, the EMO conceptual model (Jones & Rowley, 2011), are a static strategic representation that can be applied, but does not allow reflection or solutions in market adaptations, compared with the EMPDBR framework. Each student studied each element of the framework and “overlaid” it to the live business project (either their own organization in which they worked, or their consultancy business) in an approach described as “scaffolding” (Bell & Bell, 2020). As one student explained, application of the framework enabled the deep delving into issues that the students felt were particularly important, which could be multi-layered, for example, “resource organising” led to actions to retain vital employee resource, then to concern for pandemic health and safety, then to implementation of new policies and actions:

While the framework provides a basic template to analyse and evaluate strategic approaches taken (by their firm), “the framework can always be customised to add layers and sublayers for in-depth analysis.”

Students produced insights from contextualizing the framework as a line of enquiry to the business pandemic situation. Students went through the DAB (decision-making, actions, and behavior) process of post-pandemic business recovery, as explained in the model. Investigating and reflecting upon the entrepreneur’s decision-making and choices developed students’ reasoning skills as to why and how these were made. Reflecting on entrepreneurial action taken encouraged students to discuss and describe the logic of these actions and generate deeper and more meaningful insights. Reflecting on entrepreneurial behavior allowed for deeper thought processes related to the types of the EM behaviors that they had observed in the businesses.

Figure 2.

Post Covid Business Recovery Framework (Modified From Morrish & Jones, 2020).

Students identified that DABs during a crisis were often different when operating in more stable and predictable environments. They were able to build on this self-generated knowledge from reflection, triggering higher level learning (Cope, 2005), abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984) noted as being particularly necessary when working under conditions of high levels of uncertainty or during problem solving (Neck & Greene, 2011). This allowed students to populate the framework with their own (different but conceptually related) examples. Students produced adapted frameworks that were distinct to their industry, their organization type and size, and marketing context ( e.g., B2B, B2C, already operating a highly digitized business model or not). As one student described, this allowed them to develop a new adaptive EM strategy and “to think in a continuous way, to identify most critical areas of priority.”

Significantly, the action-learning that took place allowed the student to partake in an interactive process between the business, the employees, and the framework. This made access to the EM theory readily digestible, deployable, and adjustable for students who were able to analyze their business situation critically during and post-pandemic. Students were then able to make new recommendations as to how these organizations executed key EM aspects of the framework (accepting risk, resource organizing, opportunity seeking, and creating new customer value) in their recovery process. An example framework adaptation from a student in the NZ cohort is illustrated in Figure 2.

What: New Knowledge Required of Marketers Post-Pandemic

Having gone through the “how” including the benefits of using the framework within the ELC and the action-learning process, we now explain the findings of our study as they relate to the “what” of EM Education post-pandemic (Gilmore et al., 2020). We provide a summary of new knowledge that has been acquired by students from using the EMPDBR framework as part of their action-learning process. New knowledge (see Table 2) acquired is that which the students have selected being of high relevance during the problematization stage. Hence, we describe this new knowledge as being based on “new understanding and insight” from reflection and personalization obtained in the ELC action-learning process. Examples are categorized by cohort, type of entrepreneurial DABs identified.

Table 2.

New Knowledge Generated From Student Critique and Reflections.

DAB elements	MCom New ZealandFull-time (students)	MBA EnglandPart-time (entrepreneurs)	MBA IndiaPart-time (professionals)
Decision and reason	● Entrepreneurs resumed business operations through the pandemic lockdowns.● Demonstrates entrepreneurial self-efficacy and effectual reasoning.Lockdowns largely dictated decision to trade or not	● Entrepreneurs all resumed through pandemic lockdowns.● Evidenced self-efficacy and effectual reasoning and going into a ‘survival mode’	● Firms and employees in this sample all resumed through pandemic lockdowns.● Evidenced through individual and firm endeavor
Action and Logic for change	● Adopting new business models especially with online services and product delivery.● Remedial and opportunistic actions to ride out the storm.● Keeping the business going despite uncertainties—risk taking	● Refocused on core activities/functions.● Pivoted into new markets out of necessity/survival.● Where applicable to the firm/industry/market, acted to ensure resilience of supply chains	● Employee emergency funding, care and support paramount.● Majority of decisions closely related to markets and customers.● Closed some strategic business units where markets immediately disappeared.● Pivoted to new markets and created new business operations● Ensured resilience of new and existing supply chains
Behavior and scenario	● Reorganizing resources (supplier relationships, shipping, and paying bills on time).● Opportunity seeking (new customers/ new marketing mix configuration/ being competitive/ securing lasting community relationships.● Network leveraging (new distribution channels—pushing products through outlets able to trade).● Customer intensity—creating new lasting relationships with locals previously unaware of their business.● Reflections of the framework activity and the business owners’ decision-making during the pandemic. ● Students felt that the immersive exercise gave them a good insight into the inner workings of a business when confronted with disastrous and turbulent conditions.● The practical nature of the project in addition to being armed with frameworks made the consulting role realistic and enhanced their learning, enjoyment, and confidence	● Opportunity seeking (some had increased business opportunities because of the pandemic).● Resource organizing (increase/decrease in staffing), difficulties attracting the right staff, several lockdown periods.● Creating new customer value-finding new methods of delivery, new product/service designs/ new premises-expansion.● Accepting risk- being aware of their own and employees capabilities.● Reflections of the framework activity and their own behavior and decision-making during the pandemic ● Student entrepreneurs had never had ‘time out’ to consider how they had managed their business through the pandemic.Use of the framework allowed students to re-assess what decisions they had taken, why they had taken them, to reflect on this, so that, they could re-organize for the future.● Several reflected that their leadership style had been controlling with little ‘empowerment of employees’ partly due to criticality, speed and nature of the business decisions, pressure of time, and urgency and back to survival instinct	● Opportunistic organizational behavior, switching heavily to digitization and digital marketing/social media.● Resource organizing- tightly knit intra-preneurial teams overcoming staff/life losses, work from home, very long lockdowns periods, basic food unavailable.● Creating new customer value -investing in new market opportunities as they open up as result of the pandemic.● Accepting risk- Firms demonstrating swift and decisive risk reduction and acceptance and sharing of risk across product portfolios. Swiftly divesting in non-existent markets because of the pandemic.● Reflections of the framework activity and their own organizations decision-making during the pandemic and their feelings about this. ● Students found the framework useful for reflecting on the entire process.● Students could departmentalize certain aspects from the framework as being important for firm growth/survival.● Students felt empowered, as their organizations demonstrated entrepreneurial thinking and behavior, commitment to customers and change management

As reflection creates deeper learning generating further insight, an overview of student reflections as to the usefulness of the learning activity and the practical insights gained are included below the “new knowledge” gained in each cohort. We define critique as referring to the operational actions taking place, what the outcomes were and their success, and the conditions of their success (i.e., what was needed to make the action successful). We define reflection here as what happened in the business scenario and the consequences which followed (i.e., the rationale why something happened).

What: Skills and Competencies Required of Marketing and Management Students

The coded data show common themes relating to student skills and EM competencies acquired during the ELC study (see: left-hand column of Table 3). First, we identified the student skills and competencies developed during the EMPDBR framework/ELC process. Across the three cohorts, there was evidence of “critical analysis” being developed from mapping actual experience onto the framework dimensions, and “critical evaluation” of what occurred (DAB) that led to “problem identification.” “Problem identification” being the business’s post-disaster situation, explained by the student’s ability to generate new information from new understanding and insights. This naturally led to a variety of “solution evaluations” through co-creation activity and a feasibility analysis of whether certain options were viable or not on a “test and learn” basis (Gilmore et al., 2020). Students also displayed the ability to “identify opportunities” for future business resilience and growth. There was also substantial evidence in the data of student reflection.

Table 3.

Post-Pandemic Entrepreneurial Marketing Skills/Competence.

Student skills/competencies developed	EM skills/competencies developed
Critical analysis	Developing new customer retention strategies (and ensuring employee retention to deliver)
Critical evaluation	Networking and capacity building (local and overseas focus)
Problem identification	Creating new channels to market/and identifying new markets
Problem resolution	Ability to oversee workforce capability and deliver
Solution evaluation (feasibility analysis)	Swifter interventions in marketing (proactivity/responsiveness/timing)
Opportunity identification	Data-driven, digitalization strategies (including DM/SM and customer journey mapping)
Reflection	Ensuring supply chain resilience
	Ability to assess risk and mitigate

Note. EM = entrepreneurial marketing; DM=digital marketing; SM=social media.

Second, we coded for themes relating to EM skills and competencies as learning outcomes of the ELC (see Table 3). Eight themes were identified as being required of EM post-pandemic. In student adapted framework examples, we found a close relationship between the ability to successfully market and the ability to ensure the organizing of resources to deliver. Important aspects were, employee retention strategies, the ability to oversee and deliver workforce capability, networking and capacity building, and ensuring supply chain resilience, this being a priority. In terms of business resilience “developing new customer retention strategies” requires marketers to work closely with other departments in the businesses as it relies upon the firm’s “employee retention” strategies. Marketers can overcome income stream losses from market-disruption by identifying opportunities to “create new channels to market” and “identify new markets.” Being more nimble, timely and responsive with “swifter interventions in marketing” help to capture that market. Digital marketing and social media are essential in developing data-driven digitalization strategies, digital marketing and social media, and informing customer journey mapping (particularly in B2C contexts). Without the marketer’s ability to oversee the workforce capability to deliver and being able to assess and mitigate risk both locally and in the wider business, marketers require EM knowledge, and strategic oversight to create “adaptive” EM strategies.

Where: Relevance of EM Frameworks in “Out of the Classroom” Settings

We suggest that use of empirically based models or frameworks during planned experiential learning with “live” businesses bridges the gap between the classroom and any business experience. It allows for the “bringing in of the business into the class” and the students “outside of the class” as a conduit for deeper learning. Student self-reflections are an important part of this process. We see in Table 2, the NZ cohort reflects on their own EL. In contrast, students in business where they are employed at, or own/or manage reflect on their own behaviors. The UK entrepreneurs consider EMO and their own leadership for growth, where, during individual presentations, reflections were emotional and critical. Often their own controlling nature is highlighted as holding back employee empowerment and creating more pressure for them during this challenging time. Those that did reflect in this way were able to identify a better approach with employees and in some cases (because of this experiential learning), altered their leadership style. In the upGrad cohort, students also reflected on very personal issues and feelings during the pandemic situation, describing, for example, loss of close team members due to covid-19, strict long-term government lockdowns and shortage of essential food supplies. However, in using the framework, they were also able to reflect on how their organizations swiftly responded, what changes were made, how they were made, and how government support facilitated organizational stability.

We also identified additional co-creation activity for construction of new knowledge (Dahl et al., 2018) with the involvement of the “live” firm, be it the firm owned and managed by the entrepreneur (the UK), the employee manager in a large organization (India) or the project firm in the case of the NZ cohort. It is important to note that the NZ cohort in addition, required the educator to explain the consultancy role and the use of the selected framework in their project firm. The engagement required of the educator needs also to include a detailed explanation as to the marketing consultancy research process, as the students are acting as independent consultants. The benefits of this approach with the use of the EMPDBR framework are that it provides a mapping tool for qualitative research questions and a process to follow.

Often educators do not make explicit the psychological or pedagogical requirements of learners (Robinson et al., 2016). Although our focus is not on emotional well-being, the classroom conversations in both the UK and India cohorts required the educators involved to be empathetic and sensitive in their enquiry and responses to best support learner psychosocial development and to ensure emotional well-being. Sensitive topics were those caused as a direct result of the pandemic and of reflecting and discussing elements generated from use of the EMPDBR framework. These included personal and business cost from catastrophic loss of markets, immediate loss of income, and loss of employee workforce. Our study has informed knowledge concerning entrepreneurial planning and response while considering the intricacies of the experience (Runyan, 2006 cited in the work of Ratten & Jones, 2021). Therefore, we have learned by disseminating our three-way study as to how EM and EE educators can learn from adopting knowledge management techniques concerning crises.

The decision-making of entrepreneurs in small firms has been highlighted as likely to combine causation and effectual decision-making practices (Karami et al., 2022; Read et al., 2016) driven by the reasoning and judgment of the entrepreneur (Sarasvathy, 2001) especially in disrupted markets. Hence, our role as EM educators is on creating value for each learner group and supporting their authentic location in the learning process. We believe that the new personally relevant knowledge accumulated is a critical part of enabling learners to reach higher levels of learning, skills, and competencies, and thereby developing their ability to market with agility and adaptability through entrepreneurship. This in turn assists them in providing highly relevant strategic EM decisions for their own firm or project firm to overcome shortfalls in post-pandemic markets and that can facilitate better firm recovery, resilience, and market growth.

Conclusion

This study provides further knowledge of how experiential learning using frameworks can assist in generating greater understanding and insights leading to creation of new knowledge during action-based experiential learning. The study presents the skills and competencies developed both as a student and as an entrepreneurial marketer in post-pandemic businesses. The study corroborates Gilmore et al.’s (2020 p. 193) findings as to the value of “facilitating students to engage directly with entrepreneurs, by interviewing or working with them on a real-world business ‘problem’” that furthers knowledge particularly of the “how” and “what” for EM Education in post-pandemic businesses. This study goes some way to informing HEIs in terms of meeting the demand for postgraduate marketing students and student entrepreneurs who are equipped with knowledge, insight and tools to build resilience and growth in organizations. This ultimately then creates a driver for HEIs that adopt EM education programs to be more able to support government ambitions for more resilient economies and greater socio-economic wealth.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Research

HEIs are endeavoring to meet demand from governments for entrepreneurship and management education that provides industry and socially deprived regions with innovation and stimulate economies (Fada et al., 2017; Shinnar et al., 2009). There are calls for a better focus on entrepreneurship and policy (Acs et al., 2016) where market failure can substantially impede growth (Fada et al., 2017). The majority of EE studies focus on content rather than process and as EE has informed EM and marketing education studies, this is problematic. More recently, researchers have acknowledged the value of practical experience especially in the realities facing businesses post-Covid. Enriched ELC content with the use of frameworks can place research at the heart of the learning experience that is unlocked through deeper reflection. Educating postgraduate marketing students, entrepreneurs, and professionals demands authentic reality of learner experiences. Creating professional marketers with the ability to make swift decisions, take action, and show resilience based on the wider knowledge of the businesses’ resources and risks during extreme disruption, requires greater understanding and ability, and the adoption of intra- or entrepreneurial behaviors. The evidence from this study builds on the findings of Gilmore et al. (2020) that points to the requirement for EM educators to be able to pivot and swiftly identify new authentic experiences. These should resonate personally with learners so that they are able to not only enquire and acquire new knowledge, but gain the experience to discern the most relevant new knowledge, vital in fast changing environments and in disrupted markets, for example, post-pandemic.

This is a small inductive study, intended to provide in-depth insights, thus the data are not intended for reliability or generalizability. However, content validity is assured with the use of a holistic data collection approach across the three international samples and rigorous data coding and re-coding to establish themes.

Future post-pandemic research could include wider use of research-informed teaching through empirically based models or frameworks. This study presents use of EM-based models and frameworks, and in particular, the EMPDBR framework that can lead students through the process of business recovery allowing for learning and reflection on actions taken by their business during and post-pandemic. This framework provides stages of decision-making, reflection and choice based on the student re-evaluating the present situation in the “live” business. As such, this is more helpful than those that are merely strategic and non-directional. Furthermore, marketing education research on “adaptive entrepreneurial marketing strategies” and the close coupling of digital data and decision-making should be explored. Large-scale surveys are recommended with international cohorts that assess the EM constructs and authenticity of the learner experience. In addition, further research into well-being and learner psychosocial development is advised.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rosalind Jones

References

Acs

Åstebro

Audretsch

Robinson

D. T.

(2016). Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: A call to arms. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9712-2

Alqahtani

Uslay

(2022). Marketing/entrepreneurship interface research priorities (2023–2026). Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-11-2021-0151

Amjad

(2020). Contemporary challenges in entrepreneurial marketing: Development of a new pedagogy model. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 23(3), 1–22. https://www.proquest.com/openview/943f820cda1f26cab9ca77153f0e8399/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28224

Amjad

Rani

S. H. B. A.

Sa’atar

S. B.

(2020). Entrepreneurship development and pedagogical gaps in entrepreneurial marketing education. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(2), Article 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100379

Balis

(2021, March 10). 10 truths about marketing after the pandemic. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/03/10-truths-about-marketing-after-the-pandemic

Bell

(2020). Applying educational theory to develop a framework to support the delivery of experiential entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(6), 987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-01-2020-0012

Catterall

Maclaran

Stevens

(2002). Critical reflection in the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(3), 184–192. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0273475302238041?casa_token=YvAzlkhKpzQAAAAA:sZxDVxEUfMNinGW62hOv1uBWStS2jAb0W58YPTtYgZ7PLC75KlKfnk8LgYaGZkKysowTOe8GXPvx

Clark

Foster

Bryman

Sloan

(2021). Bryman’s social research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Collins

Gameti

Morrish

(2021). Re-evaluating entrepreneurial marketing dimensions in the pursuit of SME innovation and growth. Journal of Business Strategies, 38(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.38.1.1-24

10.

Cope

(2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x

11.

Dahl

A. J.

Peltier

J. W.

Schibrowsky

J. A.

(2018). Critical thinking and reflective learning in the marketing education literature: A historical perspective and future research needs. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317752452

12.

Denzin

N. K.

(2008). The landscape of qualitative research. Sage.

13.

Eggers

(2020). Masters of disasters? Challenges and opportunities for SMEs in times of crisis. Journal of Business Research, 116, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.025

14.

Fada

K. A.

Aondo

D. C.

Tsemba

Mang

Samdi

M. E.

Emmanuel

Okeke

Danjuma

T. N.

(2017). An assessment of business students’ attitude towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Development, Education and Science Research, 4(1), 101–112.

15.

Frontczak

N. T.

(1998). A paradigm for the selection, use and development of experiential learning activities in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 8(3), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.1998.11488641

16.

Gabrielsson

Hägg

Landström

Politis

(2020). Connecting the past with the present: The development of research on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education. Education + Training, 62(9), 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2019-0265

17.

Gilmore

McAuley

Miles

M. P.

Pattinson

(2020). Four questions of entrepreneurial marketing education: Perspectives of university educators. Journal of Business Research, 113, 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.016

18.

Hägg

Gabrielsson

(2019). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272

19.

Hägg

Kurczewska

(2016). Connecting the dots–A discussion on key concepts in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 58(7/8), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2015-0115

20.

Hansen

D. J.

Eggers

(2010). The marketing/entrepreneurship interface: A report on the “Charleston Summit.” Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/14715201011060867

21.

Hills

G. E.

Hultman

C. M.

Miles

M. P.

(2008). The evolution and development of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2007.00234.x

22.

Jones

Rowley

(2009). Presentation of a generic “EMICO” framework for research exploration of entrepreneurial marketing in SMEs. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14715200911014112

23.

Jones

Rowley

(2011). Entrepreneurial marketing in small businesses: A conceptual exploration. International Small Business Journal, 29(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610369743

24.

Jones

Rowley

(2012). Card-based game methods: Exploring SME entrepreneurial marketing practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 16(4), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2012.047614

25.

Kakouris

Georgiadis

(2016). Analysing entrepreneurship education: A bibliometric survey pattern. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0046-y

26.

Karami

Crick

J. M.

(2022). Non-predictive decision-making, market-oriented behaviours, and smaller-sized firms’ performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2052938

27.

Kassean

Vanevenhoven

Liguori

Winkel

D. E.

(2015). Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(5), 690–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2014-0123

28.

Kolb

A. Y.

Kolb

D. A.

(2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 7–44. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/elthe/vol1/iss1/7

29.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). The process of experiential learning. In Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (pp. 20–38). Eaglewood Cliffs.

30.

Kraus

Filser

Eggers

Hills

G. E.

Hultman

C. M.

(2012). The entrepreneurial marketing domain: A citation and co-citation analysis. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/14715201211246698

31.

Kraus

Harms

Fink

(2010). Entrepreneurial marketing: Moving beyond marketing in new ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2010.029766

32.

Kuratko

D. F.

Morris

M. H.

(2018). Corporate entrepreneurship: A critical challenge for educators and researchers. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737291

33.

Larrivee

(2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/713693162

34.

Lodish

L. M.

Morgan

H. L.

Archambeau

Babin

(2015). Marketing that works: How entrepreneurial marketing can add sustainable value to any sized company. Pearson Education.

35.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

36.

Miles

Gilmore

Harrigan

Lewis

Sethna

(2015). Exploring entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(2), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2014.914069

37.

Mitchell

Rippe

Kemp

(2022). Tales of the unexpected: Teaching turmoil and triumphs in times of crisis. Journal of Marketing Education, 44(2), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753221097503

38.

Morris

M. H.

Schindehutte

LaForge

R. W.

(2002). Entrepreneurial marketing: A construct for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501922

39.

Morris

T. H.

(2020). Experiential learning—A systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279

40.

Morrish

Coviello

McAuley

Miles

(2015). Entrepreneurial marketing: Is entrepreneurship the way forward for marketing? In Dato-on

(Ed.), The sustainable global marketplace: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference (pp. 446–446). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_261

41.

Morrish

S. C.

Jones

(2020). Post-disaster business recovery: An entrepreneurial marketing perspective. Journal of Business Research, 113, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.041

42.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

Krueger

Walmsley

(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

43.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

(2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x

44.

O’Cass

Morrish

(2016). Anatomy of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(1), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1035035

45.

O’Connor

(2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 546–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.07.003

46.

Peltier

J. W.

Hay

Drago

(2005). The reflective learning continuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305279657

47.

Peltier

J. W.

Scovotti

(2010). Enhancing entrepreneurial marketing education: The student perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 514–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001011088705

48.

Piaget

(1954). The construction of reality in the child. Routledge.

49.

Ratten

Jones

(2021). Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(1), Article 100432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100432

50.

Read

Sarasvathy

Dew

Wiltbank

(2016). Effectual entrepreneurship. Routledge.

51.

Revans

R. W.

(1982). What is action learning? Journal of Management Development, 1(3), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb051529

52.

Robinson

Neergaard

Tanggaard

Krueger

(2016). New horizons in entrepreneurship: From teacher-led to student-centered learning. Education + Training, 58(7/8), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2016-0048

53.

Sarasvathy

S. D.

(2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020

54.

Satyam Aithal

R. K.

(2022). Reimagining an experiential learning exercise in times of crisis: Lessons learned and a proposed framework. Journal of Marketing Education, 44(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/02734753221084128

55.

Schindehutte

Morris

M. H.

Pitt

L. F.

(2009). Rethinking marketing: The entrepreneurial imperative. Pearson Prentice Hall.

56.

Schon

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Routledge.

57.

Shinnar

Pruett

Toney

(2009). Entrepreneurship education: Attitudes across campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.3.151-159

58.

Vanevenhoven

(2013). Advances and challenges in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 466–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12043

59.

Wurdinger

Allison

(2017). Faculty perceptions and use of experiential learning in higher education. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/188130/

60.

Yin

R. K.

(2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford.