


































Microsoft Word - Frameworks for layout-Final_Edits2.doc


Artivate:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Entrepreneurship	
  in	
  the	
  Arts	
   	
   Volume	
  1,	
  Issue	
  2	
  
http://artivate.org	
   	
   pp.	
  65-­‐77	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Copyright	
  ©	
  2013,	
  the	
  author	
   	
   	
   	
   	
  
	
  
	
  

A note to readers: The following article by co-editor Linda Essig was peer reviewed by the 
Artivate editorial board and edited by Gary D. Beckman. 
 
FRAMEWORKS FOR EDUCATING THE ARTIST OF THE FUTURE: TEACHING 
HABITS OF MIND FOR ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP 
Linda Essig, Arizona State University 
 

Abstract 
 This essay looks at pedagogies that can be deployed to teach the habits of mind that 
support arts entrepreneurship through the lenses of frameworks developed by Gardner, Duening, 
and Costa & Kallick for conceptualizing ways of thinking.  It draws a network of connections 
between these frameworks for ways of thinking on which are mapped various pedagogies for 
teaching arts entrepreneurs as employed in educational programs and as described in recent 
literature.  After first briefly summarizing each of these frameworks, I graphically describe the 
ways these various frameworks may overlap and then offer examples of pedagogies that support 
the development of entrepreneurial habits of mind for artists and others. 
 

Introduction 
 In Five Minds for the Future, Howard Gardner (2008) writes, “I believe that current 
formal education still prepares students primarily for the world of the past, rather than for the 
possible worlds of the future” (p. 17).  His premise is meant to extend across all disciplines, but 
nowhere is it more evident than in the contrast between the conservatory arts pedagogy of the 
past and the emergent pedagogy of arts entrepreneurship education.  In the traditional, studio-
based model of arts education, the disciplinary talents of students are developed in the studio of a 
master teacher (Hong, Essig, & Bridgstock, 2011). Gardner however, advocates for teaching 
“ways of thinking,” of developing adults with “synthesizing and creative capacities” (p. 17). 
 Gardner’s poetic turn of phrase “the possible worlds of the future,” reflects an underlying 
concept of entrepreneurship: seeing the potential for something to exist in the future that does not 
exist in the present or, as it is commonly known in the entrepreneurship literature, “opportunity 
recognition.”  This ability to imagine future possibilities, what I have come to term “the future 
imaginary,” can be nurtured in the classroom to, quoting Gardner (2008) again, “prepare 
youngsters so that they can survive and thrive in a world different from one ever known or even 
imagined before” (p. 17).  In other words, ways of teaching can lead to ways of thinking. 
 Gardner provides a framework for developing curricula and pedagogy across all 
disciplines.  Classical literature on entrepreneurship (e.g. Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1950; 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

66	
  

Drucker, 1985) provides a framework that is more specific, but not limited in a way that would 
exclude the arts. In fact, the four fundamental entrepreneurial actions elucidated in that literature: 
opportunity recognition/discovery; creation (the novel); innovation; and equilibration (of an 
imbalanced market) are actions as applicable to the arts disciplines and trans-disciplines as to 
any.1 As Peter Frank (2008) writes “Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behavior are embodied 
in ‘what’ is accomplished and not ‘where’ or within a specific context. . . . the entrepreneurial act 
is universal within the private, nonprofit, or public sector” (p. 194).  
 Tom Duening (2010) links Gardner’s five minds specifically to entrepreneurship 
education.  He traces the development of thinking about entrepreneurship from trait theories, 
through behaviorism, to more recent cognitive theories.  He points out that Gardner’s “Five 
Minds” are developed from meta-categories of cognitive sub-skills that can be used to develop 
“curricular goals, objectives, and methods” (p. 2) .  Duening looks at cognitive theories specific 
to entrepreneurship to develop his “Five Minds for the Entrepreneurial Future” and begins to 
suggest ways to build curricula around objectives derived from those five minds.  His 
suggestions, as elucidated following, do not go far enough toward building specific cognitive 
skills, at least as potentially applicable toward arts entrepreneurship. Costa & Kallick’s (2008) 
work on K-12 education provides a way of linking the behavioral and cognitive theories through 
their taxonomy of “Habits of Mind,” or “thoughtful, intelligent action” (p. xxii) in useful ways.  
 This essay looks at pedagogies that can be deployed to teach the habits of mind that 
support arts entrepreneurship through the lenses of these various frameworks for conceptualizing 
ways of thinking.  I begin to draw a network of connections between these frameworks for ways 
of thinking on which are mapped various pedagogies for teaching arts entrepreneurs as employed 
in educational programs and as described in recent literature.  After first briefly summarizing 
each of these frameworks, I graphically describe the way these various frameworks may overlap 
and then offer examples of pedagogies that support the development of entrepreneurial habits of 
mind for artists and others.  
 

The Multiple Frameworks 
Gardner’s five minds 
     Gardner (2008) collects ways of thinking into what Duening (2010) calls “synthesized meta-
categories” (p. 3) that Gardner views as a policy recommendation.  Briefly described, these five 

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1 One could argue, per Schumpeter (1961/1911), that equilibration is not an action in itself, but rather a result of the 

creative destruction that occurs after opportunity recognition, creativity, and innovation. I include it here as part of 

the entrepreneurial process. 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

67	
  

are: 
• The Discipline Mind: Gardner views the disciplined mind as master not of the skills of a 

specific discipline (i.e. subject matter) but rather “a distinctive way of thinking about the 
world” (p. 30) like a _________[fill in the blank].   

• The Synthesizing Mind: Defined as “the ability to knot together information from many 
different places into a coherent whole” (p. 46). 

• The Creating Mind: The creating mind is one (or a group of ones) that, “perennially 
dissatisfied” (p. 83) with the current state, “is willing to pick herself up and “try and try 
again” . . . to forge creative achievements” (p. 83).  Creative achievements, it is worth 
noting are innovative within a specific domain and subsequently have an influence on 
that domain (see p. 81). 

• The Respectful Mind: The respectful mind is not just tolerant, but is sympathetic with 
and values members of other groups or cohorts. 

• The Ethical Mind: “The ethical mind looks at oneself in relationship to society” (p. 144).  
It produces work that Gardner calls “good;” work that is excellent, responsible, and 
engaging. 

 
Figure 1. Gardner’s five minds for the future. 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

68	
  

 
Duening’s five minds and habits of mind 
 Like Gardner, Duening (2010) delineates five “minds” in an attempt to organize thinking 
about learning objectives in an entrepreneurship curriculum.  While all five are important to 
developing an entrepreneurial perspective, that is a disciplinarily entrepreneurial mind, only 
three are cognitive: the opportunity recognizing mind, the designing mind, and the risk-managing 
mind; one is a characteristic (the resilient mind); and the last is action-oriented:  the effectuating 
mind.  Thus, Duening’s approach differs significantly from Gardner’s.  That does not, however, 
mean that these five “minds” are not a useful framework for developing teachable “habits” of 
mind, which link the cognitive with the behavioral.  Duening defines each of his five minds thus: 
• The opportunity recognizing mind:  as a form of pattern recognition after Baron (2006)2 
• The designing mind: “the ability to design a ‘solution’ to a customer’s problem” (p. 11) 
• The risk managing mind: characterized by the ability to evaluate and subsequently minimize 

risk 
• The resilient mind: “ability to absorb defeat and/or bad news without losing one’s focus on 

goals and objectives” (p. 13). 
The effectuating mind: an “orientation toward goal definition and goal achievement” (p. 14).   
 Effectuation can also be thought of as a means-end relationship in which the goal 
develops from the means as opposed to the causation model in which the means are chosen to 
produce a specific end (Sarasvathy, 2001), thus effectuation brings us back full circle to 
recognizing the opportunities that the means provide.   
 

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2 Baron suggests that entrepreneurs have a unique capacity to use cognitive frameworks to recognize patterns of 

connection between, for example, demographic changes, technology, and other factors. 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

69	
  

 
Figure 2. Gardner’s five minds with Duening’s five minds for an entrepreneurial future. 
  
 Duening’s five minds for an entrepreneurial future are more akin to the “habits of mind” 
defined by Costa & Kallick (2008) than to Gardner’s cognitive meta-categories as they can be 
viewed as mindful behaviors or, as noted earlier “thoughtful, intelligent, action” (p. xii).   
Because entrepreneurship can be viewed as a universal form of human action (Koppll & Minitti, 
2008), the action orientation of the habits of mind taxonomy provides another framework for the 
development of action-oriented entrepreneurship pedagogy. Briefly listed here, Costa & 
Kallick’s (2008) sixteen habits of mind can be mapped onto Gardner’s five cognitive minds and 
Duening’s entrepreneurial minds: 

• Persisting 
• Managing Impulsivity 
• Listening with Understanding and Empathy 
• Thinking Flexibly 
• Thinking about Thinking (Metacognition) 
• Striving for Accuracy 
• Questioning and Posing Problems 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

70	
  

• Applying Past Knowledge to New Situations 
• Thinking and Communicating with Clarity and Precision 
• Gathering Data Through All Senses 
• Creating, Imagining, Innovating. 
• Responding with Wonderment and Awe 
• Taking Responsible Risks 
• Finding Humor 
• Thinking Interdependently 
• Remaining Open to Continuous Learning 

  
Figure 3. Costa & Kallick’s habits of mind mapped on to Gardner’s five minds for the future and 
Duening’s five minds for an entrepreneurial future. (These are situated so that minds and habits 
that work together are graphically adjacent.) 
 
 How, then, do we consider all of these multiple “minds” or “habits of mind” in relation to 
entrepreneurial behavior, and specifically in the arts and culture sector, and subsequently, how 
can we “teach” them?  
 Figure 4 illustrates how the Gardner, Duening, and Costa & Kallick’s taxonomies might 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

71	
  

relate to one another and subsequently to the entrepreneurial framework of opportunity 
recognition, creation, innovation, and equilibration or market entry as synthesized from the 
classic works of Schumpeter (1961/1911) and Kirzner (1973).  The delineation between the 
habits of mind and the entrepreneurial categories is not hard and fast, but provide a tool for 
seeing the ways in which the trans-disciplinary habits of mind can relate to the disciplinary 
actions of entrepreneurship. 

 
Figure 4. The habits of mind taxonomy as related to four phases of the entrepreneurial process. 
 

Pedagogy 
 Having laid out these multiple frameworks as a foundation, the attention of this essay 
now turns to pedagogic methods for teaching artists the entrepreneurial habits of mind that will 
support their success as artists.  Three pedagogic techniques are discussed and subsequently 
connected to the multiple frameworks delineated earlier: mentorship, collaborative team projects, 
and experiential learning through incubated venture creation.  
 
Mentorship 
 Mentorship is a key component for training Gardner’s “Disciplined Mind.” It can 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

72	
  

encompass “modeling ways of thinking,” and “the provision of timely useful feedback on earlier 
efforts” (p. 31).    It can be likened to coaching or to the teaching of fishing.  The mentor, often 
in an experiential context, shows a student how to cast the line and then offers feedback on the 
student’s strategy, technique, and results.  Thus, the student fisherman eats not just for one night, 
but has food for a lifetime.  The mentor models techniques for self-reflection as well, so that the 
student can evaluate his or her own results when they work independently upon program 
completion.   
 Smith (2005) points to the goal orientation of mentorship. Drawing on the ancient 
relationship between Mentor and Telemachus, Smith notes, “mentoring is intentional” (p. 63).  
Not only does a good mentoring relationship have goals, goal-setting itself is often one of the 
learning outcomes of the mentor/protégé relationship.  The goal-setting process becomes one of 
the means toward the larger goal of a successful career in the arts.  Thus, the effectuating mind, 
the mind that looks at (or finds) the available means and develops ends there from can be 
developed by the mentor/protégée dyad.   
 Mentorship has long been a pedagogic technique for disciplinary training in the arts in 
which the master teacher guides the student artist in his or her own studio.  Kuuskoski (2011) 
relates such disciplinary training to what he calls “Entrepreneurial Mentorship,” writing that 
mentorship “helps students develop both a diverse set of skills [i.e. the discipline of their artistic 
practice] and alertness toward identifying opportunities for impactful arts projects “ (p. 107).   
Not only the artistic discipline, but the entrepreneurial discipline of opportunity recognition can 
be developed in the mentor/protégé relationship.  The more seasoned mentor may perceive 
opportunities more readily and using the classical Socratic technique of questioning, guide the 
protégé toward recognition as well.  This concept of alertness to opportunity is understood by 
Kirzner (1982) to be the propensity to imagine or formulate a vision for the future.  Only when 
one is alert, can the reality if the future be brought into alignment with that which is envisioned.    
 Thus, mentorship can be seen as a pedagogy for the habits of mind in the upper third of 
Figure 5.  These are the habits related to disciplinary thinking, but also effectuation and 
synthesis.  Moving outward to the Costa & Kallick’s habits of mind, mentorship supports 
thinking and communicating clearly and with precision, striving for accuracy, questioning and 
posing problems (which in a good mentoring relationship can be a bi-directional activity), 
applying past knowledge, and others. 
 Simonton’s (1984) social psychological study of artistic creativity finds a positive 
correlation between artistic eminence and the quantity of mentors, or “masters,” as he calls them 
in his study.  Preliminary data from an arts venture incubator (n=27) likewise suggests that 
regular, directed, and active mentoring can be correlated with venture success.   



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

73	
  

 
Figure 5. Three signature pedagogies mapped onto the habits of mind taxonomy. 
 
Collaborative team projects 
 Learning to work collaboratively is not only practical, but is also supportive of 
entrepreneurial behavior, especially in the areas of creativity and innovation.  Some research 
indicates that groups produce more novel ideas than individuals working separately.  Groups 
provide a fertile ground for the emergence of novel ideas (Meisek & Haefliger, 2011).  To be 
successful in developing novel ideas, groups should be heterogenous rather than homogenous.  A 
tendency to focus on commonalities rather than differences inhibits the development of new 
ideas (Paulus & Nijstad, 2006) and can lead to what organizational behaviorists call 
“Groupthink.”  From George Orwell’s 1984, Groupthink is the inhibition of creativity by 
seemingly automatic consent to the majority view. If Groupthink can be avoided, rich novel 
ideas can emerge. As Nemeth and Kwan (1984) have shown, exposure to minority judgment in 
groups produces more original associations.   
 If creativity is understood as the generation of novel ideas, then ideation skills are at the 
foundation of creativity.  These can be practiced in group brainstorming exercises.  Ward (2004) 
looks at three forms of creative cognitive processes that support entrepreneurship: conceptual 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

74	
  

combination, developing analogies, and problem formulation.  Brainstorming groups in an arts 
entrepreneurship classroom can exercise these techniques. Groups may be asked to combine lists 
of preexisting concepts or products in new ways or think of new ones, find analogies between 
new or existing concepts, or define problems that require creative solutions. A recent 
brainstorming exercise among four groups of four students in my own classroom yielded a total 
of 75 ideas for arts-based projects that used some form of cognitive combining in concept 
description. Examples included laundromat/bar, conga line/cancer, professors/break dancing.    
From the list of 75, students could then begin to assess which ideas met actual needs or wants or 
addressed real problems.  The brainstorming exercise is timebound and operates under the 
following ground rules, adapted from Gryskiewicz & Taylor (2007): 

• Suspend judgment (all ideas are equally valid) 
• Encourage freewheeling (no idea is too wild) 
• Quantity (come with as many ideas as possible; weeding comes later) 
• Cross-fertilize (ideas feed off of other ideas) 
• Avoid killer phrases or words (e.g. “no,” “really?” “I don’t think so”) 

A brainstorming exercise such as this addresses not only Gardner’s “Creating Mind,” but also the 
“Synthesizing Mind” and “The Respectful Mind.”  Respectful, nonjudgmental discourse is a 
prerequisite to effective brainstorming.   Paulus & Nijstad (2003) assert that creativity in groups 
is most effective when group members share their diverse perspectives.  Group work is, perhaps, 
one of only a few ways to develop the respectful mind for which Gardner advocates.   
 To take the exercise further, into the realm of more practical entrepreneurship, and the 
development of Duening’s “Designing Mind” and “Risk-Managing Mind,” students can be asked 
to begin to design the organizational structure around the cognitive concepts and then assess the 
feasibility of the concept itself.  To do this effectively, students need to dissect the impulses 
behind the initial brainstorming (“meta-cognition” and “managing impulsivity” in Costa & 
Kallick’s parlance) and then create/imagine/innovate the ways in which the cognitive 
combinations identified in brainstorming can be brought to fruition.  
 While students willingly participate in brainstorming activities in the classroom, informal 
polling indicates that they prefer not to work on team projects outside of the classroom, for the 
most part due to the problem of free-riding and the logistical challenge of scheduling six or eight 
students.  Further observations of the impact of digital tools such as group discussion boards can 
be made to assess if these teaching tools are an effective substitute for in-person brainstorming. 
 
Experiential learning 
 For the purposes of this essay, experiential learning for the arts entrepreneurship educator 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

75	
  

means providing opportunities for students to learn through the experience of launching and/or 
managing an arts-based venture. Within this context, students might be asked to develop an idea 
and put it before an audience or, to use more business-oriented language, put it out in the 
marketplace.  Or, they may be asked to be entrepreneurial in their approach to managing a 
venture such as a student-run gallery, theatre company, or arts education program.  In doing so, 
one can help the student develop Gardner’s “Ethical Mind,” the mind that understands the artist 
entrepreneur as a citizen of a community with “rights, obligations, and responsibilities” (p. 129).   
The respectful mind developed through collaborative project work is now exercised in the bright 
light of day, in the public.  Cantor (1995) notes that experiential learning programs can bring 
students together with their communities and further that such linkages can lead to positive 
economic development outcomes.   
 Gardner’s ethical mind seems most related to Duening’s entrepreneurial minds of 
resiliency and effectuation because these involve the relationship of the student to their larger 
community.  To develop the resilient mind, Duening recommends a series of classroom 
interactions in which students share their experience of failure or interact with entrepreneurs who 
have failed.  These exercises may teach students about resiliency, but they do not necessarily 
teach students to be resilient.  Resiliency is a necessary prerequisite to several of Costa & Kallick 
habits of mind, including persisting, finding humor, and responding with wonderment and awe.  
Educators can help students develop resilience by providing them with real opportunities to fail.  
 Failure is an excellent teacher.  To cite just one example from an experiential learning 
curriculum, the student literary manager of a student-managed theatre company failed to secure 
the performance rights to a script. The production was officially cancelled, but the students, 
resilient and persistent, as well as passionately committed to the work, invited friends and 
instructors to a dress rehearsal.  In doing so, they learned not only an operational lesson, but a 
behavioral one as well.  They persevered and although unable to reap as much reward (both 
monetary and artistic) as they had hoped, through resilient and persistent action presented their 
work to an invited audience. 
 Modeled after small business venture incubators, a university arts venture incubator 
provides an experiential learning opportunity in which students can launch – or attempt to launch 
-- an arts-based venture.  In a university setting, the primary objective of the incubator may be 
primarily educational, in contrast to commercial small business incubators that measure their 
success via employment, launch percentage, or other economic development metrics.3  Return on 

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3 A study of the evaluation metrics of university-based arts incubators is nearing completion at the time of this 

writing. 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

76	
  

investment, whether in financial or cultural capital, is secondary to the program’s educational 
objectives.  The incubator provides seed money and mentorship and connects student arts 
entrepreneurs to business services.  Students must secure matching funds to the incubator 
investment.  This is perhaps the most direct means by which the incubator teaches persistence.  
The student must persist at securing support or they will “fail,” where failure is defined by the 
withdrawal of seed funding.  A former student who launched an online music business through 
such an incubator program comments on what he learned through the eventual failure of his 
business,  “Sometimes you have to go through those mistakes and learn how to make hard 
decisions even though, emotionally, you want to keep the business alive. I was able to tap into so 
many opportunities because I started this company,” (in Partridge, 2011).  
 

Conclusions and further thoughts 
 Gardner’s cognitive approach to teaching future citizen leaders and Costa & Kallick’s 
behavioral one can be viewed as a multi-dimensional scaffold for the development of arts 
entrepreneurship pedagogy.   Interactive pedagogies, in which students experience 
entrepreneurial behaviors and their results can be effective in developing the alert, visionary, 
resilient arts leaders of tomorrow.  Yet, rigorous research is needed to determine the efficacy and 
impact of such pedagogies on entrepreneurial behaviors. 
 
References 
Baron, R.A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs 

“Connect the Dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management 
Perspectives, February, 2006 104-119.  

Cantor, J.A. (1995). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom and 
community. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports 24(7), 1-102. 

Duening, T. (2010). Five minds for the entrepreneurial future. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 
19(1), 1-22. 

Essig, L. (2009). Suffusing entrepreneurship education throughout the theatre curriculum. 
Theatre Topics, 19(2), 117-124.  

Frank, P.M. (2008). A model of nonprofit and socially motivated entrepreneurial behavior. In G. 
Shockley, P. Frank & R.Stough (eds.) Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary 
approaches (pp. 192-205).  Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 

Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. 
Gryskiewicz, S. S. & Taylor,  S. (2007).  Making creativity practical: Innovation that gets 

results. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. 



Essig	
   	
   Frameworks	
  for	
  Educating	
  the	
  Artist	
  of	
  the	
  Future	
  
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________	
  
Artivate	
  1	
  (2)	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

77	
  

Hong, C., Essig, L., & Bridgstock, R. (2011). The enterprising artist and the arts entrepreneur: 
Emergent pedagogies for new disciplinary habits of mind. In N. Chick, A. Haynie & R. 
Gurung (Eds.), Exploring more signature pedagogies (). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. 

Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 
Press. 

Kirzner, I.M. (1982). Uncertainty, discovery, and human action: A study of the entrepreneurial 
profile in the Misesian system. In I. Krizner (ed.) Method, process, and Austrian 
economics (pp. 139-160). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 

Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. 
minority influence processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277– 282. 

Partridge, A.R. (2011). The business of art. Alumni Magazine, 15(1), 46-47. 
Paulus, P.B. & Nijstad, B.A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Cary, 

NC: Oxford University Press.  
Sarasvathy, S.A. (2001). Causation and effectutation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic 

inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 
243-263. 

Schumpeter, J.A. (1961/1911). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, 3e. New York: Harper & 
Brothers.  

Simonton, D.K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within 
generations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(6), 1273-1286. 

Smith, Michael V. 2005. Modern Mentoring: Ancient Lessons for Today. Music Educators 
Journal 91(11), 62-67. 

Acknowledgements 
 The main ideas of this essay were developed for and presented at the annual conference 
of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), Milwaukee 
WI, 2011.  A subsequent revision was presented at the Higher Education Creativity Conference 
in Chengdu, China, 2012.  Boyd Branch illustrated the figures from a sketch by the author.  
Many thanks to Dr. Tamara Underiner for providing useful feedback on the final version of the 
paper and to Gary Beckman for his editorial acumen. 


