Purpose When it comes to undergraduate education, the terms “innovation” and “entrepreneurship” are often used interchangeably with respect to curricular practices and their associated learning and developmental outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to chart a course through the vast and growing multidisciplinary literature covering both topics to argue that innovation and entrepreneurship are not only different concepts, but they also play out in postsecondary institutional contexts in different and important ways. Design/methodology/approach Based on these differences, the authors propose that developing innovators must precede teaching future entrepreneurs and that the home of innovation education is not necessarily in the business school at all. Ideally, the authors believe innovation should be taught separately from any one disciplinary context. To illustrate the concept, the authors point to an existing program where professors and students from different disciplines work together on actual problems provided by external clients from both the public and private sectors. Findings Based on the authors’ rationale and approach, the authors propose an agenda that would allow for a deep analysis of the interaction between organizational behaviors and student outcomes, providing insight into effective practices and strategies for mobilizing institutional efforts aimed at teaching innovation and better aligning innovation with entrepreneurship education. Originality/value The authors provide a clear rationale for separating innovation and entrepreneurship pedagogy in higher education, terms that have been conflated in literature and in practice for nearly a century. The authors do this in an original way by pairing a theoretical framework with a short case study of an education program that has developed innovation pedagogy at the undergraduate level.

Knowledge-based businesses are vital to the economic development and revitalization of many regions, especially areas that have experienced a decline in traditional industries. Notwithstanding the importance of KBBs to areas with marginal economies, little is known about the business development support requirements of these firms and the extent to which their support needs are being met. Through the use of a telephone survey, this empirical study investigates the demand-side perspectives and experiences of entrepreneurs in a peripheral region of Canada to determine the types and sources of support used at various stages of business development, and to identify potential support gaps. Findings indicate support used by KBBs differs from more traditional firms and that support needs change as firms move through the life cycle. There appears to be a low level of awareness among firms in the study region of available support services and a perception that support beyond the start-up stage is generally lacking. These findings have important implications for researches and for agencies with a business development support mandate. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006business, knowledge-base, development, enterprise support, G20, H70, O10, R10,

In this short summary report on the legal definition of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal and improving cross-border collaboration in criminal cases, challenges, and recommendations in the areas of defining the crime, criminal investigation and prosecution, and cross-border cooperation are made. These are the outcomes of a working group discussion during the writers' conference of the HOTT project, a European Union-funded project against trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal.

This descriptive case study provides a broad overview of JMU X-Labs, an academic maker space (in other words, a teaching lab with fabrication and digital production technologies) that hosts team-taught, project-driven multidisciplinary courses. The JMU X-Labs serves the students and faculty of James Madison University[MSR-m1] , a mid-sized, public, and undergraduate-focused university in the United States. The narrative proceeds from two different but overlapping points of view: how courses at JMU X-Labs are designed and taught; and how administration of JMU X-Labs supports them. The authors refer to specific courses, pedagogical methods, and problem-solving strategies to illustrate the narrative, and they argue throughout that pedagogy and administration are indelibly intertwined in how the organization operates. Gesturing to the broad applicability and transferability of the JMU X-Labs model, the authors mark some of areas of further research that would benefit a more robust understanding of how the organization operates and grows. Finally, the authors speculate how the dynamics of this young and growing organization may answer some core and difficult questions pertaining to innovation in higher education.[MSR-m1]James Madison University (JMU) Clearlyl referenced in abstract and opening paragraph below to explain institutional context as per reviewer request.

<?page nr="49"?>Abstract A necessary response to addressing complex global problems rests in the theoretic and practice of social innovation: approaches to solving intractable social issues on a local and global scale. The logic, language, and practices of social innovation can, in turn, motivate energies toward conceptualizing college students as social innovators: individuals capable of meaningfully and cooperatively responding to persistent and transdisciplinary problems including social inequities, environmental change, and public health crises. To provide a philosophical anchor needed to ultimately sustain these propositions, we unite social innovation with Honneth’s concept of social freedom. We then introduce an expanded definition of the prototype as a mechanism that can be utilized to embed social innovation and social freedom throughout the contemporary collegiate academic curriculum. The subsequent section considers students in two interdependent forms of relation—student-student and student-faculty—within the dynamic context of postsecondary learning. We conclude by incorporating our ideas around an imagined possibility for securing social freedom amidst present ecological fragility and provide long-range considerations of our theory for the higher education enterprise.