Keywords

1 Introduction

Over several decades, entrepreneurship education and research have expanded rapidly in the United States and Europe (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2022; Matlay, 2009; Packham et al., 2010). Meanwhile, in Eastern or Asian countries, entrepreneurship education has been thriving for approximately the last twenty years. For instance, In Malaysia, entrepreneurship is heavily regarded as stimulating the economy and maintaining competitiveness (Arokiasamy, 2012). Education that promotes entrepreneurship awareness is essential for developing a knowledge-based economy (Cheng et al., 2009). Moreover, the present Chinese administration has stressed the importance of public entrepreneurship and innovation, demonstrating the country’s strong desire to promote economic growth through entrepreneurship (Liu, 2015). This policy raised the number of students enrolled in Chinese institutions for higher education and the number of new enterprises (Lingyu et al., 2011). While Hong Kong and Japan place a greater emphasis on secondary school entrepreneurship instruction, this is likely due to the governments of these two nations’ substantial support for national-level entrepreneurial activities for youth (Wu & Wu, 2017).

Likewise for Indonesia. It is the world’s fourth most populous country, with over 109 million school-aged children, or almost 42% of 255.5 million (Statistic Indonesia, 2015). This condition will encourage investment for quality in education, as reflected in some existing literature. For example, both Elqadri et al. (2016) and Mas (2014) highlight the significant role of entrepreneurship education in producing a highly qualified and competitive workforce through vocational schools. Various other studies emphasize a connection between Islamic religious schools and entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions (Alias & Musa, 2014) or discuss web-based entrepreneurship education courses available to the general public (Chang et al., 2014). Despite that positive development, one of the biggest challenges is that the national curriculum system in the country has focused on students’ cognitive attainment (Darmaningtyas, 2004), not adding much to the topic of experiential learning in actual life (Joni, 2005). One has also critiqued obsolete instructional techniques that limit critical and creative thinking. Also, the number of entrepreneurship education programs is debatably lacking (Ghina, 2014; Larso et al., 2012). The situation creates a research opportunity to explore more insights into improving entrepreneurship education in Indonesia.

On the other hand, numerous studies suggest that design thinking can be a successful approach not only in business and entrepreneurship fields (Bruton, 2010; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Mumford et al., 2016) but also in management (Schlenker, 2014), engineering (Plattner et al., 2011), and many other educational disciplines. However, that application is primarily prominent in Western countries (e.g., Glen et al., 2015; Melles et al., 2012). Also, studies argue that much Western knowledge (including teaching methodology) is not universally and immediately applicable to different cultural entities (Hong Thanh, 2007; Retna & Bryson, 2005). Therefore, it is crucial to propose and develop a conceptual framework to describe the cross-cultural adaptation of entrepreneurial design thinking methodology from the Western to the Eastern education perspective.

Since it is a conceptual paper, the approach adopted by the authors reflects on the social-constructivist philosophy (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992) and integrates some prominent cross-cultural adaptation theories (Hofstede, 1986; Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004; Kimbell, 2011; Shafaei & Razak, 2016). This study provides critical insights into Indonesian entrepreneurship in higher education. The primary reason is that the practical teaching of entrepreneurial design thinking, as one of the most recent and innovative pedagogies for entrepreneurship education (von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013), is not yet well-spread in that area (Larso et al., 2012; Soepatini, 2013). Additionally, this study’s proposed conceptual framework aims to be a starting point for more research in the transfer and adaptation of knowledge and teaching methodology and contribute to the innovative teaching literature of entrepreneurship and design thinking.

2 Entrepreneurial Design Thinking: The Contemporary Western Teaching Methodology in Entrepreneurship Education

The concept of entrepreneurial design thinking combines entrepreneurship education and design thinking (von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013). Both approaches are well-acknowledged in Western academia (Glen et al., 2015; Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). The following is the basis of these two approaches.

2.1 Entrepreneurship Education in Today’s University Context

There is no universal agreement regarding the goals of entrepreneurship education (Blenker et al., 2008; Gibb, 2002; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Also, there have been numerous definitions and perspectives for entrepreneurship, yet there is a lack of an integrated research framework (Davidsson, 2005). Systematic analysis of the different themes within entrepreneurship education highlights three distinct outcomes. They enable an understanding of entrepreneurship, enhance graduate employability, and encourage graduate enterprise (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Gilbert, 2012; Hindle, 2007; Huq & Gilbert, 2013; Rae, 2010; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Meanwhile, Patel and Mehta (Patel & Mehta, 2017) have described some critical thinking and action characteristics that should be embedded in today’s university context of entrepreneurship education. They are value creation (Bill et al., 2010; Sarasvathy, 2001); radical collaboration and communication (Buchanan, 1992; Harrison & Leitch, 2008); being resilience (Dym et al., 2006; O’Connor, 2002); and the discovery-driven motivation (Kourilsky et al., 2007; Timmons et al., 2007).

Despite the progress above, “persistent deficits in certain non-technical competencies from graduates” are still being highlighted by universities and business schools (Jackson & Chapman, 2012, p. 96). Many of these weaknesses can be attributed to outmoded curricula, incorrect pedagogical practices, and a lack of opportunity for work-integrated learning (Jackson & Chapman, 2012). To better understand entrepreneurship education, it is necessary to define what “education” means for learners and the teachers in the circumstances of entrepreneurship (Blenker et al., 2008; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Gibb, 2002). However, it is also crucial to acknowledge that the outcomes of entrepreneurship education are not achievable with a “one-size-fits-all” entrepreneurship pedagogy (Huq & Gilbert, 2017).

Nevertheless, most Western literature has identified several well-recognized teaching methods in entrepreneurship education (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2022). They are creating business challenges and real venture competition (Bridge et al., 2010; Lackéus & Middleton, 2015), which supports the broader application of entrepreneurial thinking and technology transfer (Lackéus & Middleton, 2015; Pittaway & Hannon, 2008). In addition, there are design-based approaches (Biffi et al., 2017; Lahn & Erikson, 2016), mentorship, and apprenticeship (Dominguinhos & Carvalho, 2009; Mandel & Noyes, 2016). Those are unique methods of integrating creativity, exploration, and future-oriented thinking in entrepreneurship education and encouraging reflection of actual entrepreneurial experiences (Mandel & Noyes, 2016). The former is likely to be more concerned with the “content” of the instruction. In contrast, the latter follows the so-called “pedagogical reinvention,” which emphasizes the “process” and “method” of learning (Huq & Gilbert, 2017). The term “design thinking” is most commonly connected with a focus on student-centered pedagogy and its emotional function and abilities in the learning process. This method allows learners to move beyond only knowing and speaking to using, implementing, and doing (Neck & Greene, 2011). This key characteristic is a part of entrepreneurial thinking and action (Patel & Mehta, 2017).

2.2 Design Thinking and Its Linkage to Entrepreneurship Education

Design thinking is considered a relatively recent term in the business and entrepreneurship education literature, and it originated in the Western world (e.g., Brown, 2008, 2009; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Stanford, 2009). However, it has recently become even more common, which has spurred academics to explore this notion and its use in various educational fields (Sarooghi et al., 2019). They focus on the human-centered creation and evaluation of physical objects (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), which involves understanding people as inspiration, prototyping, building to think, using stories, and inspiring culture (Brown, 2008).

There are five essential attributes of design thinking found in the literature and related to entrepreneurship education. They concentrate on the individual and empathic (Dolak et al., 2013); team collaboration (Dorst, 2010, 2011; Stanford, 2009); experimentation attitudes (Brown, 2009; Lockwood, 2010); versatile and broad-spectrum mindset (Martin & Martin, 2009); and a strong mentality and personality (Hassi & Laakso, 2011). Accordingly, all design thinking processes enable divergence and convergence in all the phases and distinguish between spaces of a problem (i.e., phases of observing and understanding the problem and human-centeredness empathy) and a solution (i.e., generating ideas, modeling and visualizing, and prototyping phases) (Efeoglu et al., 2013). Their work environments are similar to entrepreneurship: they produce artifacts (mocked up designs or organizational goods or services), apply empathy and a human-centered approach, and use creativity to address challenges (von Kortzfleisch et al., 2013).

Finally, entrepreneurship education has been one of the pioneering business disciplines in integrating design thinking while being a newer area of focus in business education (Dunne & Martin, 2006; Garbuio et al., 2018; Glen et al., 2014). It allows students to take a more constructive approach to learning, practicing, and integrating the knowledge and skills needed to follow an entrepreneurial path. Several progressions have aided the widespread use of design thinking in entrepreneurship pedagogy, including the opening of more new ways to move away from conventional teaching methods (e.g., business-plan writing) (Blank & Dorf, 2012) and contextualizing design thinking principles (e.g., the Lean Startup Reis, 2011) for entrepreneurship education and research contexts (Sarooghi et al., 2019).

2.3 Entrepreneurial Design Thinking

As explained earlier, design thinking is arguably comparable to entrepreneurship and can be used to solve complex challenges and uncover unexpected issues. The two domains are brought together in entrepreneurial design thinking. However, its profound literature is still primarily evidenced in the Western countries, for instance, Australia (Melles et al., 2012); the USA (Glen et al., 2015); and Denmark (Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). In particular, the term “entrepreneurial design thinking” is derived from the study of von Kortzflesch et al. (2013). It is a teaching method in the University of Koblenz, Germany, as a team-diversity-based approach for treating user-centered problems as entrepreneurial opportunities within an iterative process supported by creativity fostering tools and environments.

Moreover, entrepreneurial design thinking needs to be backed up by sound educational philosophy as a teaching methodology. According to studies, Lev Vygotsky’s (1896–1934) social constructivism philosophy serves as the basis for design thinking (Carroll, 2014; Leinonen et al., 2014). The design thinking teaching technique provides confidence in the creative talents through a system to hold on to when experiencing problems during the task (Scheer et al., 2011). This concept is similar to Vygotsky’s notion of scaffolding, in which teachers work as facilitators to help students reach their optimal standard of achievement (Lor, 2017). At the same time, because it stimulates multidisciplinary collaboration, the combination of teaching methodologies “entrepreneurship and design thinking” allows peers to assist with scaffolding (Glen et al., 2015). Design thinking is the missing link between social transformational pedagogy theories and the practical entrepreneurial application necessary in the business sector. The method allows for a holistic constructivist approach to complicated issues (Scheer et al., 2011). It consists of iterative cycles of construction and reflection (Rauth et al., 2010; Schön, 1983) that can assist in the transition from traditional-content education to practical problem-solving.

Consequently, curriculum designers and educational leaders are increasingly required to sympathize with students as end-users (Lor, 2017). According to studies, contemporary teaching approaches should move away from complete reliance on textbook information (e.g., Booyse, 2010; van Merrienboer & Kirschner, 2012). Students take part as active participants rather than as an audience, and the role of the instructor transforms into that of a “learning facilitator” instead of an exclusive subject matter expert (Huq & Gilbert, 2017). Therefore, the pedagogy placed a strong emphasis on design-led experiential and collaborative learning, role-playing, and reflective analysis to provide students with the opportunity to develop skills for lifelong learning and the self-assurance to apply those skills in both their academic and professional lives (Conrad et al., 2007; Stefani, 2009). As a result, entrepreneurial design thinking may lead to a shift away from traditional knowledge transfer (teacher-centered) and toward developing individual capacity (student-centered) (Nielsen & Stovang, 2015).

3 Entrepreneurship Education in Indonesia

Establishing entrepreneurship education in Indonesia is arguably ineffective (Ghina, 2014; Larso et al., 2012). The mapping literature study conducted by Amalia & von Korflesch (2021) found that the current state of entrepreneurship education in Indonesia is relatively still in its infancy.

Most of the country’s entrepreneurial education programs are on Java Island (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). These programs use traditional teaching methods, where the usual lectures, case studies, and group work prevail. Although more modern teaching approaches (such as business mentorship, teamwork, and internship) have gained popularity, the conventional style remains popular.

In addition, supportive friends and family members or seeing and meeting successful entrepreneurs in the media seem to influence Indonesian students significantly to study entrepreneurship and become future entrepreneurs (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). Some prominent Indonesian higher education institutions offer mentoring business and entrepreneurial programs through mentorship to shape students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and provide them with fundamental business skills and knowledge (Larso & Saphiranti, 2016; Sembiring et al., 2011). There might also be a misperception of masculinity and gender discrepancy in entrepreneurship education (Amalia & von Korflesch, 2021). Low levels of education, difficulty obtaining credit to start a business, legal discrimination against female entrepreneurs, and limited family support are the primary reasons female students in Indonesia believe that successful “formal” entrepreneurial roles are more masculine (Firdausy, 1999; Tambunan, 2008). Moreover, when they become entrepreneurs in the future, they may be trapped in the “informal” entrepreneurial sector.

Another issue in Indonesian entrepreneurship education is a lack of understanding of teaching and generating skilled graduate entrepreneurs and acceptable approaches (Priyanto, 2012; Rumijati, 2017). Many Indonesian colleges continue to offer entrepreneurship as an elective course (Ardianti, 2009). Furthermore, one of the barriers is the country’s hostile national atmosphere and culture to creating entrepreneurial social enterprises. Children from families with low incomes, who live in rural areas, and whose parents have a lower level of education are more likely to have parents who want them to leave school as soon as possible to help support their families financially (Global Business Guide, 2015). Consequently, the percentage of secondary school graduates who do not pursue higher education remains high. Furthermore, some cultural attitudes drive Indonesian college students to prefer working for the government or corporations over becoming entrepreneurs to achieve financial stability (Larso et al., 2009). The situation may deteriorate because the systemic educational regime does not equip students to be active societal contributors as entrepreneurs rather than largely passive shoppers (Soepatini, 2013).

Overall, developing entrepreneurship education in Indonesia has been challenging. The aforementioned perspectives on Indonesian entrepreneurship education are the critical considerations in proposing the conceptual “contemporary” teaching methodology of entrepreneurial design thinking to be implemented from the Western to the Eastern culture.

4 The Proposed Framework: Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Entrepreneurial Design Thinking Methodology from the West to Indonesia

Exploring the research of cross-cultural adaptation can be divided into two areas: a cross-cultural adaptation that involves “humans” (i.e., international students, sojourners, migrants, and expatriates) and the “non-humans” (i.e., knowledge learning transfer and distant learning theories). In general, theories concerning human adaptation accept that cross-cultural adaptation will cause stress to individuals. Some will remain the same (standardization), while others will be part of the new environment (adaptation). Kim’s theory is one of the prominent theories concerning this dynamic change process that happens to individuals upon relocating to a new environment (Kim, 2001). She clarifies that three main facets influence the successful operation of human adaptation, i.e., individual predisposition, environment, and intercultural transformation of both host country and sojourners. Nevertheless, more recently, the study of human cultural adaptation has moved from social-psychological education and medicine to the contemporary theories of cultural learning, stress-coping models, and social identification (Shafaei & Razak, 2016).

Exploring the cross-cultural dimensions can also be to non-humans, i.e., knowledge learning transfer and distant learning theories. For the former, the existing studies argue that much of management knowledge is prominently from the West and not universally applicable to Eastern countries or cultures (see Hong Thanh, 2007; Napier, 2006). Therefore, educators and curriculum designers must adjust when transferring that knowledge to different cultural entities. While for the latter, cross-cultural adaptation is necessary to change the learning and teaching method, primarily because technology development has led to the proliferation of Western academic knowledge and courses worldwide. Therefore, to embrace this modern era of digital learning, traditional offline teaching in Eastern countries may need to shift and adjust to online-based education from the West (Edmundson, 2006; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010).

Additionally, studying cross-cultural adaptation is pertinent to understanding the cultural dimensions from geographical perspectives, i.e., Western and Eastern cultures (Liu, 2012). Hofstede’s (1986) and Hofstede and Bond’s (1984) five national cultural dimensions are the most frequently cited literature: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individual/collectivism, long/short-term orientation with the Confucian Dynamism, and masculinity/femininity.

Power distance is the condition to which people in a community accept power disparity as a given in the organization. This degree affects formal hierarchy, where subordinates believe superiors have more power and are unquestionable. Uncertainty avoidance is how people who feel threatened by unclear situations have constructed beliefs and organizations to avoid them (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). Individualism/collectivism means caring for oneself rather than the group’s priorities and standards. Confucianism substantially influences east and south-east Asian (including Indonesian) leadership styles and work behaviors. To focus on immediate outcomes, Confucian dynamism implies moral principles that include honesty for tradition, arranging connections by status, maintaining one’s image (social reputation), and having a feeling of personal consistency and stability. Masculinity–femininity refers to civilizations where achievement, money, and possessions dominate society. However, femininity refers to cultures where compassion and well-being predominate (Bosma et al., 2009).

Liu (2012) further noted from the previous works of Hofstede that “self-reliance” is of the utmost importance to Westerners. They seek freedom; they want to make their own decisions and have little influence from others (i.e., individualism, long-term orientation, and masculinity). Asians (the Easterners) are accustomed to being in groups and value collaborative circumstances (i.e., collectivism, short-term orientation, and feminity). Therefore, it is critical to remember that East and West cultures are quite different and to recognize these qualities when teaching entrepreneurial design thinking across cultures. These cultural differences have ramifications for how local educators educate learners, and any advice should account for these distinctions rather than advocating a single strategy.

Furthermore, conceptualizing the “adapted” teaching and learning methodology from the Western to the Eastern countries, which focuses on the student-centered pole, is compatible with social constructivism (Zhu et al., 2010). Social constructivism emphasizes generating individuals’ meaning through interactions between students and educators (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). Nonetheless, despite the profound properties of social constructivism and cross-cultural adaptation theory, literature has provided little insight into the area of cross-cultural adaptation of teaching methodology.

Consequently, the primary aim of this current paper is to theoretically illustrate and describe how we can adapt the prominent Western teaching method/pedagogy to a different cultural entity, in this case: Indonesia. We primarily refer to the work of Shafaei and Razak (2016), in which they conceptualized the cross-cultural adaptation of international students who studied in Malaysia. They made a conceptual framework to represent the relationship and general concept of cross-cultural adaptation and a conceptual model to explain the cross-cultural adaptation mechanism. Besides, the well-known works of Kim’s human cross-cultural adaptation factors (Kim, 2001), Hofstede (1986), and Hofstede and Bond’s (1984) work on countries’ cultural dimensions influenced this study. In this case, we conceptualized how individual (Indonesian students and lecturers) and environmental (university) factors can influence the process of cross-cultural adaption of the foreign teaching methodology. Such factors are students’ and lecturers’ preparedness to change and adaptive personality, their learning, teaching, and communication pattern, and cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1986), as well as a university (setting, system, and culture) receptivity and conformity to change/adapt, respectively (Kim, 2001).

To illustrate how the cross-cultural adaptation process of entrepreneurial design thinking can happen, we refer to the study of Holden and von Kortzflesich’s knowledge transfer theory (Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004). This paper argues that entrepreneurial design thinking is not being “transferred” as the term used by Holden and von Kortzflesich (2004), but instead “adapted” to different cultural entities. We acknowledge some of their theory elements as pertinent in cross-culturally adapting the western teaching method to Indonesia. These notable elements include socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. The process may happen through socialization during the class and externalization can be done with the relevant stakeholders (university leaders, staff, and external parties). Then the possible combination of regular and new teaching methods and strategies, and finally, internalization through the curriculum system (Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004). See Figs. 1 and 2.

Fig. 1
A framework contrasts eastern and western teaching perspectives. It has a circular diagram that includes individual and situational factors that correspond to cross-cultural adaptation, the process of transferring and adapting Western to Eastern cultures. It eventually leads to the outcomes.

Proposed conceptual framework for Indonesia

Full size image
Fig. 2
A data model of cross-cultural adaptation entrepreneurial design thinking method. The individual factors and university or environment factors correspond to cross cultural adaptation of entrepreneurial design thinking. The final outcomes are adapted teaching methodology.

Proposed conceptual model for Indonesia

Full size image

In Fig. 1, our proposed framework conceptually represents the overall picture of how we conceptualized the cross-cultural adaptation of entrepreneurial design thinking in Indonesia. On the left side, individual and situational factors can influence the teaching and learning perspective of Indonesian students, lecturers, and university leaders in implementing entrepreneurship education in their country (see Hofstede, 1986; Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Kim, 2001). The right side illustrates the general cross-cultural adaptation process when transferring/adapting entrepreneurial design thinking from the West to the East (Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004).

Figure 2 is our conceptual model. We provided more components “inside” the earlier framework that explains the cross-cultural adaptation mechanism of how we can do the process theoretically. Finally, the intended outcome is the teaching methodology of entrepreneurial design thinking from the western that is adjusted and adapted to the characteristics of the Indonesian cultural perspective on entrepreneurship education.

5 Further Discussion and Conclusion, Implications, and Limitations

The conceptual framework and model developed in this paper propose a research insight into the area of cross-cultural adaptation to non-humans. They are adjusted and extended from the prior models (Kim, 2001; Shafaei & Razak, 2016), focusing on cross-culturally adapting a teaching methodology from the Western to the Eastern cultures. In particular, the earlier models/theories of cross-cultural adaptation to non-humans include two approaches: knowledge transfer theory (e.g., Holden & von Kortzfleisch, 2004; Hong Thanh, 2007; Newell, 1999) and online learning theory (e.g., Edmundson, 2006; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010). The management literature connects them with the work of Hosftede (1980) in comparing national cultures in terms of broad value differences (Hofstede, 1983, 1986). This study also uses Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, similar to the earlier research.

Accordingly, Reeves and Reeves (1997) further argue that Eastern students will not have the same way of understanding meaning as the Western academics, managers, and teachers who compiled the knowledge. This idea means that the knowledge or teaching methods will not be understood or used if only translated into the East’s language and culture. The same would be true if a Western academic translated a book on management into the language of a student from the East. In other words, the knowledge transfer from the West to the East is difficult because the students’ tacit knowledge in the East is fundamentally different from the tacit knowledge of the West’s academics, teachers, and managers. When making a teaching method, it is vital to consider the learners’ cultural background (Wang & Reeves, 2007).

Therefore, this paper is a conceptual study intended to be an initial stage to propose a theoretical framework on how we can cross-culturally adjust a Western teaching methodology, i.e., the entrepreneurial design thinking methodology, to the Eastern cultures and countries case: Indonesia. By reflecting and employing the approach of social constructivism and cross-cultural adaptation theories, the proposed framework in this study is eye-opening. Here an outline of the implications of this paper that make it distinguishable from the previous studies is presented.

Unlike previous models/theories that only tackle knowledge transfer and online/distant learning, this study employs social constructivism and cross-cultural adaptation theories. This study aims to fill the research gap in the literature on how to cross-culturally adapted teaching methodology from the West to the Eastern cultures. Thus, the conceptual model proposed in this study takes a different route of looking cross-cultural adaption of non-humans (i.e., teaching methodology) from the perspective of learners, educators, and the university environment of the host country.

This paper provides strategic managerial insights, especially for Indonesian academicians, education policymakers, and university administrators, to improve its current entrepreneurship education by adapting the innovative teaching methodology from the West. Given the current competitive market of higher education and business schools in Indonesia, adapting an innovative teaching methodology (in this case: entrepreneurial design thinking) from the West can benefit the host country’s educational institutions and perhaps the national system. The innovation of this teaching methodology is the adaptation to the cultural characteristics and perspectives of Indonesian students, lecturers, and the university setting.

This study also contributes to the rich literature of both entrepreneurship and design thinking fields by exploring and unlocking a new door for contemporary research themes focusing on cross-cultural adaption to non-human, i.e., knowledge and teaching methods. Nevertheless, since this is a conceptual paper, it is important to make these generalizations cautiously. Additionally, the proposed model may further need to be improved and empirically tested in the future.