Rita Egizii (rita.egizii@royalroads.ca) is an Associate Faculty in the School of Business at Royal Roads University. Victoria BC Canada.

In its most basic form, research involves tackling possible solutions to a perceived problem. It is a systematic investigation to validate, negate or establish facts, reach conclusions, and suggest conceivable resolutions (Creswell, 2015). One of the continuing challenges of teaching and undertaking qualitative research is interpretive bias. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) state “Assumptions are so basic that, without them, the research problem itself could not exist” (p. 62). Ongoing challenges for instructors teaching research methodology include motivating students to actively undertake primary research, helping them define a problem worth researching, having them authentically engage in the process by leveraging each learner’s natural abilities while managing bias, and paying attention to qualitative trustworthiness and quantitative validity. The entrepreneurial thinking approach presented in this paper assists faculty members in helping their students overcome the fear of doing research, offers a learner-centered systematic approach to the planning of their studies, and encourages learners to focus on the impact of their research undertakings.

Rationale

The entrepreneurial mindset embraces evidence-based solution-finding that uses a learning-centered approach to incorporate principles of innovation and design thinking to deconstruct difficult, multi-faceted problems. As an emerging signature pedagogy, an entrepreneurial thinking approach can be applied for teaching research in a post-secondary context within a framework which recognizes the principles of pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy (Blaschke & Hase, 2015); and strengthens pedagogical value (Egizii, 2021) connected to a self-directed, highly experiential learning activity. As such, it incorporates: the instructor taking on a facilitation role and managing the pace (surface structure), strategic instruction and intentional assessment such that the student discovers how to apply their learning to their professional discipline (deep structure), and the opportunity to apply the moral and ethical standards associated with that discipline (implicit structure) (Lock et al., 2018). Specifically connected to research methodology, the approach embraces the significance of problem identification, data collection, data analysis, added value, and application of outcomes.

Overview

Faced with teaching a portfolio of courses within a condensed undergraduate program which involved the need for important primary research from learners with little or no research methodology background, I experimented with different pedagogical approaches that combined educational theory with discipline-specific theory. In so doing, I realized the constructs that supported an entrepreneurial mindset were similar to those required for conducting any type of primary research connected to value creation.

From a pedagogical perspective, my experience in the classroom reinforced my sense that adult students are highly motivated by being part of a learning community that respects them as co-creators (Mezirow, 1991). This involves integration of their work and life experiences into their learning and the direct application of activities to their lives and to the problems they perceived as being important. To motivate them to fully engage in the research that needed to be completed, they needed to both understand and co-construct the research protocol. That process involved the reciprocal giving of knowledge (sharing of feedback, suggestions, ways of knowing) and taking of knowledge (learning from others’ perspectives, receiving feedback, sharing struggles) between instructor and student, and between learners. At a curricular level, it involved learning what to tackle (amongst the many problems that need to be solved), if and how that problem was ‘researchable’ (i.e., quantifying the problem) and thinking ahead to what was driving the need to research something. Qualitative research is a human-centred endeavor that requires empathy and synthesis. Triangulating and strengthening qualitative findings with quantitative support appears to be an approach students understand and can be encouraged to try.

Experimentation with a variety of pedagogies led me to realize reframing thinking is one way to broaden a learner’s own meta-cognition of how they learn, and what works best for them, as individuals. The psychographic profiles of the adult learners enrolled in my undergraduate Commerce courses are individuals who are: slightly older than traditional undergraduate entrants (average age is mid-30s), have significant family commitments (children, aging parents, or other care commitments), come from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, and work full-time. The challenge I faced was to design intellectually engaging, experiential learning that addressed curricular requirements, respected the constraints and needs of our adult learners, and provided the highest pedagogical value. The learning outcomes I was hoping to achieve included evidence of: (a) problem-solving—specifically a demonstrated ability to apply both qualitative and quantitative research methodology to guide the selection of research methods; (b) critical thinking—specifically a demonstrated ability to use a broad range of research methods and conceptual models to make judgements and draw conclusions; and (c) ensuring trustworthiness and validity—specifically demonstration of self-reflection and metacognition that indicated they were questioning their own frames of reference and biases and incorporating the viewpoints of others, including their team members and participants of their research.

Although tested inside a business program, the approach shared here can be generalized to any social science or humanities-based discipline. It is founded on the premise that anyone who has ever “bricolaged” (Lévi-Strauss, 1967) a stop-gap solution to any problem is thinking like an entrepreneur. In other words, most of us have “ma[de] do by applying combinations of resources at hand to new problems and opportunities” (Baker & Nelson, 2005, p. 333).  Entrepreneurs are bricoleurs and innovators who are constantly problem-solving. In an entrepreneur’s world, value is a reciprocal requirement. It is for the best interest of all stakeholders that solutions provide the highest benefit possible (Lane, 2012). This is particularly so for social entrepreneurs. Understanding how entrepreneurial, innovative thinkers solve niggly problems by seeking feedback from their stakeholders, analysing this information objectively, and continually asking ‘why’ emulates the research process in an experientially refreshing way.

The conceptual framework that underpins the approach is presented in Appendix A. The traditional process is juxtaposed against the natural bricolage process used by entrepreneurs exploring the idea-to-concept stage of their potential market solutions. There are critical decision-making points along the way. These decision points stand whether the research process is conducted within teams or by individuals.

The approach shared here was used inside a one-week immersive applied business challenge connected to an undergraduate commerce degree. The course took place over seven days and was assessed as a team project. There were four to five students per team. A description of the activity, learning objectives, pre- and post-assessment checks, and scaffolded assignments are presented in Appendix B. The final grade was comprised of assignment scores (using a weighted analytic rubric, Appendix C) plus participation (observed through captured work on shared workspaces and recordings of online meetings). I met with each group at a time of their choosing for daily check-ins in the online meeting space. The teams would walk me through their work, after which I provided brief feedback, reviewed rubrics, and recommended guidelines. I would grade their work each evening and return those grades within a 12-hour period.

The groups decided how they were going to manage the work, when they would work synchronously (in their online meeting rooms provided by the university) and when they would work asynchronously, on their own. The most important critical decision was deciding when decisions needed to be made and working through that decision-making process. Formative feedback was provided if requested. I was available via mobile text for ‘emergency pop-ins,’ which happened once for most teams, and two to three times for the occasional group. Pop-ins took, on average, about 30 minutes to work through. Often, it was because a team was stuck in bias mode, had gone down a rabbit hole, or were not using the decision-making matrices (Appendix D). A few re-directing questions usually got them back on track.

The daily check-ins, formative feedback, knowledge they could call on me and get assistance within one to two hours of contact, and the weighted rubrics moved the teams steadily beyond their comfort zones each day. The need for support decreased as the confidence levels increased. The first few days were busy and long for all of us; they got shorter, more fun, and more energized as the week progressed.

Reflections

The lessons presented to me through this activity have been many. My continued iterative work with the framework has validated my belief in the power of teachers as enablers, facilitators, and designers of learning. Within an adult learning environment, we all grow when we share accountability and responsibility for our mutual learning. For that, I am grateful. I have learned the risks, for both teacher and learner, are worth the reward. Letting go of the control and the ego can be difficult for learners when the stakes are high, and that responsibility rests on the shoulder of the instructor. Some students remain uncomfortable with the unstructured ambiguity of the entrepreneurial mindset. Gently steered into places where they gained unexpected value, not from process, but by nature of following their natural tendencies, curiosities and learning styles, students eventually recognized an organized structure within the chaos. With each application of this activity, I continue to experiment with different topics, revise and tweak the decision-making matrices and the rubrics, and monitor my level of involvement. With respect for the sharing of voice, I will let the learners speak to the impact of this learning, for themselves.

My biggest challenge was conducting the primary research. I felt a little out of my element as my research experience has mostly been secondary. Once I got more comfortable it became easier. Knowing that observation is a form of primary research made it easier to gather information. The process was transformational for me (Anonymous student evaluations, [2020]).

Over a three-year span, over 80 per cent of learners (n = 142) who engaged in this activity continued to demonstrate these skills in several of my subsequent courses.

My biggest takeaway is – the whole process pretty much! From getting that first idea, testing and going through the build measure loop, primary and secondary research. To trust the processes, and that the work is worth the time and effort for what is revealed Anonymous student evaluations, [2020]).

These lightbulb moments, I would hope, is what every instructor waits for.

References

Anonymous student evaluations [unpublished], Royal Roads University, [2020]

Baker, T. & Nelson, R.E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.

Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2015). Heutagogy, technology and lifelong learning for professional and part-time learners. In A. Dailey-Hebert & K. S. Dennis (Eds.), Transformative perspectives and processes in higher education (pp. 75–94). Springer.

Creswell, J. W. (2015b). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

Egizii, R. (2021).  An exploratory sequential mixed methods investigation of pedagogical value in a research-intensive university.  [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Calgary].  ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113628.

Lane, M. (2012).  Social enterprise: Empowering mission-driven entrepreneurs.  American Bar Association.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010) Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed). Merril.

Lock, J., Kim., B., Koh, K., & Wilcox, G. (2018). Navigating the tension of innovative assessment and pedagogy in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.1.8

Lévi-Strauss (1967).  The savage mind.  Garden City Press Limited.

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

Ries, A. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Publishers.

Appendix A

Conceptual Framework: Entrepreneurial Approach to Teaching Research

Notes to Appendix A

I have used what I call the “Jeopardy Approach” to assist students in deriving their primary research question. This is something that seems to be a huge obstacle for most, causing undue distress early in the process. Emulating the popular American television game, I encourage students to muse on what they envision the solution to their identified problem might be, then frame that knowledge (the possible answer), in the form of a question. It has been successful in getting them over that initial obstacle.

1. A Decision Matrix Framework is presented in Appendix 4. Students learn the importance of choosing the best fit between the criterion and possible alternatives they are not needing to choose from. This tool has provided one of the most effective methods of pushing through the many decision points connected to research protocol: selecting a targeted participant group from among many possible groups; grouping and sorting responses from surveys (when there is no previous experience or time to engage in data coding); choosing which type of data collection tool to use; and choosing a final best solution to the identified problem.
2. I present exploratory research to students as “Minimum Viable Tests,” similar to Eric Ries’ (2011) construct of minimum viable product (MVP): the minimum effort required to collect the maximum amount of validated learning with the least effort.
3. The Build-Measure-Learn Loop, also coined by Reis (2011), represents one cycle of testing a hypothesis by beginning with the riskiest assumption, gathering primary research to validate/invalidate that assumption, and learning from the results of that feedback. It is a very effective method of removing researcher bias, as it forces the learner to provide evidence (from their participant group) for assumptions often missed by inexperienced researchers. A common one is the assumption of “student” (an often-used participant group). Undergraduate students assume a “student” is someone just like them. When they begin to explore this, they quickly realize how broad the demographics and psychographics of the term can be.
4. Pilot testing of surveys and interview questions is often a new concept to novice researchers. They are often quite surprised and humbled to realize their questions are leading, biased, or not capturing what they had intended. The pilot often becomes an understandable “minimum viable test” that exemplifies the “build-measure-loop.” Once they understand the concept (based on pilot testing), future iterative cycles of data collection become easier and increasingly effective.

Appendix B

Applying Entrepreneurial Thinking to Research Lesson Plan

Appendix C

Sample Rubric: Assignment 1_Problem Definition and Participant Mapping (15%)

Appendix D

Decision-making matrix