Paradigm Reconstruction of University Entrepreneurship Education in the AI Era
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71204/pa99ky74Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Entrepreneurship Education, Paradigm Reconstruction, Adaptive Innovation Capacity, Symbiotic RationalityAbstract
This paper proposes a conceptual framework for reconstructing university entrepreneurship education in response to the emergence of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC). Drawing on the philosophy of technology and educational sociology, this paper argues that the displacement of routine entrepreneurial functions by AI necessitates a paradigm shift—from instrumental rationality to Symbiotic Rationality, and from generic creativity to adaptive, context-specific competencies. The proposed framework operates across three dimensions: cultivating innovation ecosystem participants rather than standalone entrepreneurs; developing situated capabilities, including critical AI literacy, value-rational decision-making, and interpersonal intelligence; and reorienting pedagogy toward real-world intervention through entrepreneurship laboratories. To assess these outcomes, this paper introduces a three-dimensional evaluation framework comprising process indicators, capability measures, and impact assessments, grounded in Whitehead's process philosophy, Dewey's pragmatism, and Value Sensitive Design. The framework centers on Adaptive Innovation Capacity (AIC) as its core construct, offering a theoretically integrated response to the pedagogical challenges of the AI era.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice (R. Nice, Trans. ). Stanford University Press.
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N. G., & Carter, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Entrepreneurship: Implications for Venture Creation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1028-1053.
Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E., et al. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Social Science Research Network, 24-013.
Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The Cognitive Flexibility Inventory: Instrument Development and Estimates of Reliability and Validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience And Education. Kappa Delta Pi.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. MIT Press.
Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society. Vintage.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–industry–government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63–125.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who Is an Entrepreneur?” Is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston : Beacon Press.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology (W. Lovitt, Trans. ; pp. 3–35). New York Harpercollins Publishers.
Helfat, C. E. , & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The Dynamic resource-based view: Capability Lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598.
Long, D. , & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16.
Mollick, E. R., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven Approaches for Students, with Prompts. The Wharton School Research Paper. https://doi. org/10. 2139/ssrn. 4475995
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Crown Business.
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.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) London (U.K.) Transaction Publishers.
Shane, S. , & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. The Mit Press.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: the Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Vesper, K. H. (1980). New Venture Strategies. Prentice Hall.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. https://w. pauldowling. me/rtf/2021. 1/readings/LSVygotsky_1978_MindinSocietyDevelopmentofHigherPsycholo. pdf
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: an Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press.
Whitehead, A. N. , Griffin, D. R. , & Sherburne, D. W. (1978). Process and reality : an essay in cosmology. Free Press.
Williams, R. , & Edge, D. (1996). The Social Shaping of Technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865–899.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Zhifang Fan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited. Authors retain copyright of their work, and readers are free to copy, share, adapt, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as appropriate attribution is given.
How to Cite
