Objectives:The article aims to explore the changing influences and relevance of passive and experiential methods of learning within what can be described as a new era of entrepreneurial education. What still largely remains unaddressed in the literature is how are entrepreneur's best educated and developed in a manner which can have a direct impact on their personal and business development.Prior Work: The article suggests that learning is action-oriented, and that entrepreneurs are not merely "doers"; they are "practitioners". An integral part of being a "practitioner" is the use of practice to help move the firm beyond the "adaptive" learning which takes place in naturally occurring non-contrived learning occasions. Approach:The article is theoretical in its intent and adopts a social constructionist view of knowledge and learning. The research approach is informed by practitioner-based practice and research, education and participation as a process of social learning. Practical Implications: The article sets out to develop an argument against the traditional 'passive' means of business education, by suggesting that entrepreneurs who are exposed to passive learning are spectators rather than active participators. Originality/Value:The article contributes to our current understanding of entrepreneurial learning by recognising that entrepreneurial learning in the context of higher education takes place beyond the domain of the classroom learning experiences, through experiential and discovery based learning which questions traditional orthodox pedagogies. The article illustrates how knowledge is constructed through a situated practice of knowing, and demonstrates how a practice-based perspective might be useful for the study of entrepreneurial education.

The author proposes a model for university—industry partnership which, in particular, takes a different approach to intellectual property rights from current policy in the UK. He argues that the prevailing attitude to IPR, while attempting to generate rewards for the academics, actually reduces the rewards they receive. He also suggests that contract research is assuming too high a priority and that universities are in danger of being deflected from their key roles of educating students and advancing knowledge. The exploitation of intellectual ability, he argues, does not equal the exploitation of intellectual property rights, and a focus on the latter in the universities is counterproductive to stimulating collaboration. The approach proposed is that currently employed successfully in the Smith Institute, a collaborative venture between the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and Smith System Engineering.

No abstract