Microsoft Word - 138-Article Text-486-2-11-20200929.docx VOL. 9, NO. 2 FALL 2020 SPECIAL ISSUE: ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION Reframing the Arts within the Liberal Arts Community Teaching an Arts Entrepreneurial Mindset to Achieve Transdisciplinary Outcomes Sarah Archino Furman University Marta Lanier Furman University Ross McClain Furman University ABSTRACT: The dominance of New Venture Creation and Skills for Transitioning models has produced scholarship focusing on the impact of entrepreneurial pedagogy on graduates who pursue careers within the arts. This paper shares a liberal arts approach, positioning arts as a central component in the creation of an entrepreneurial mindset with benefits for students throughout campus. Shifting our department to cultivate an entrepreneurial mindset through arts-based experiential education, we have created an alternate approach that can serve those who wish to become professional artists, but also provides value for the majority of our students who will not remain in the arts. KEYWORDS: arts entrepreneurship, liberal arts colleges, arts education, student learning outcomes, entrepreneurial mindset. DOI: 10.34053/artivate.9.2.138 Introduction Arts entrepreneurship is an established and rapidly growing field, however the dominance of New Venture Creation (NVC) and Skills for Transitioning (SFT) models has led to a scholarly focus on the impact of entrepreneurial pedagogy on graduates who pursue careers within the arts (Beckman, ). This paper shares a different approach taken by a liberal arts college, to position arts education as a central component in the creation of an entrepreneurial mindset with benefits for students throughout campus. By shifting our department to cultivate an entre- preneurial mindset (rather than more traditional integration of business curriculum or arts- focused entrepreneurial training), we have created an alternative approach that can serve those ARTIVATE 9.2 6 who wish to become professional artists, but also provides value for the majority of our students who will not remain in the arts (Neck & Corbett, ). This shift to emphasize entrepreneurial competencies “broadens the applicability of entrepreneurship education from the exclusive do- main of students who want to be entrepreneurs to students who want to be more entrepreneur- ial” (Toscher, ). In other terms, we encourage students to think of entrepreneurial skills as more than professional development, but as a mindset of “being enterprising” (Bridgstock, ). As part of a vibrant and interconnected liberal arts community at Furman University, our art department has the opportunity to work across disciplines and fields, contributing to the formulation of the next generation of well-rounded, ambitious, entrepreneurial leaders, and problem solvers. Home to both art history and studio majors, our department has embraced a role in nurturing skills, such as flexibility and creativity, that are required in the twenty-first- century economy. By connecting with components of entrepreneurial education, we have reframed both the studio and art history majors to affirm the importance of the arts within a liberal arts education and to emphasize both the intrinsic richness of these fields and their pragmatic applications outside of academia without requiring a radical reconfiguration. This allows us to integrate en- trepreneurial competencies without simply adding them as another curricular requirement (Dempster, ). This essay is a progress report and it will address our rationale, the steps we have taken to expand our footprint beyond the art building, our approach to assessment, and our next steps in reframing the arts within the liberal arts community. Institutional Background Furman University is a small liberal arts and science college, home to , undergraduate stu- dents and five graduate programs, located in Greenville, South Carolina. Our signature initia- tive, The Furman Advantage, which guarantees each student the opportunity for engaged learn- ing experiences and vocational support, was announced in . Through internships, mentoring, curricular and extracurricular programming, research, and travel opportunities, the program “prepares students for lives of purpose and accelerated career and community impact” (“The Furman Advantage,” ). In particular, our four-year pathway provides a measured track of exploration, introspection, and preparation designed to help students grow during their undergraduate experience and develop an individualized course of study. This institutional fo- cus has supported the evolution of our art department and allows us to integrate our curriculum across disciplinary boundaries. As a university, Furman adopted the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) competencies in order for students, parents, and administrators to easily connect with the skills the liberal arts education provides. Working with employers, NACE defines career readiness as “the attainment and demonstration of requisite competencies that broadly prepare college graduates for a successful transition into the workplace” (). They have also named a core set of seven competencies that employers seek in college graduates. These competencies ARTIVATE 9.2 7 are not specific to any particular industry, rather they are broader soft skills that create excep- tional employees: global/intercultural fluency, career management, critical thinking/problem solving, oral/written communications, teamwork/collaboration, digital technology, leadership. Employable Outcomes We must accept that employable outcomes are important. This is how students and their fami- lies determine the cost–benefit analysis of their college education. According to a Northeastern University study, “[eighty-one] percent of students believe that college is crucial to starting a career” (Loveland, ). When students are making these decisions, they are often making them with limited knowledge of how they will actually need to navigate professional pathways and networks. They are comfortable in departments with a direct career path such as business or health sciences, which were the two top majors in  (National Center for Education Sta- tistics). They don’t think about art. And part of this is our fault, if we remain wedded to the notion of art being an out-of-the-ordinary, autonomous sphere of creative genius and innate talent. We have to change the conversation. And we must face the inevitable question: Does it really pay off to go to a small liberal arts college—and study art? We would answer yes. Counter to the clichés and stereotypes of under- employed art students, an arts education precisely targets skills for a changing career field (White, ). Furthermore, contrary to student (and parent) perceptions of professional edu- cation, employers increasingly emphasize the need for flexibility, creativity, and communication skills over discipline-specific training (Petrone, ). We don’t need to limit ourselves to training that will produce a new generation of arts workers. Few graduates pursue a career as an artist. While only . percent of college graduates work as artists, even within graduates with an arts degree, only  percent will work as artists (Wassall & Alper, ). Thinking more broadly about the value the arts contribute to an un- dergraduate education, the authors focused on in-demand skills (including problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, communication skills, or cognitive flexibility), which we realized were already integral to arts practice (Colon, ). These are the skills one learns in making art—whether through a single class, a series of courses, or finishing a degree. Even apart from arts-specific entrepreneurial training, art courses offer targeted training for an entrepreneurial mindset. Our department learning objectives map directly on to the entrepreneurial skills artic- ulated by Pollard and Wilson (): “) the capacity to think creatively, strategically, analyti- cally and reflectively, ) confidence in one’s abilities, ) the ability to collaborate, ) well devel- oped communication skills and ) an understanding of the current artistic context.” At Furman, our students do not typically pursue careers as fine artists, even if they major in studio art. This follows larger trends: most arts graduates do not work in the field (White, ; Wassall & Alper, ). This does not mean we cannot contribute meaningfully to their career trajectory, nor that we can’t have meaningful impact on non-arts majors. To build on Gary Beckman’s () argument that “we lose this nation’s arts and intellectual arts capital when talented and competent students relinquish their dreams of arts employment” (p. )— ARTIVATE 9.2 8 we need to consider the large population of students who never dream of working in the arts, but who take our classes. This requires us to move beyond thinking that the primary purpose of arts-related entrepreneurial education is “teaching students to create a sustainable arts career” (Gangi, , p. ) and to reconsider what we want to teach through art. Arts Education as Entrepreneurial Education Mindful of the challenges facing liberal arts institutions and the pressures our students feel to choose majors that have direct career tracks, our art department emphasizes dual strains: the developmental benefits of studying the arts and the employable skills developed through arts education. In confronting the career-mindedness of our students, we can assure them of the valuable skills and competencies that are developed through the arts without radically altering our practice. As Toscher () argues, an “arts entrepreneurial mindset . . . alludes to a more understated, yet important aspect of entrepreneurship and arts entrepreneurship education: that it is more than venture creation and can be aimed towards the development of entrepre- neurial competencies” (p. ). As a department, we saw crossover and value in both NACE and entrepreneurial compe- tencies that students learn through interacting in the art department whether as majors or as non-majors. Creating an entrepreneurial mindset involves three categories of entrepreneurial competencies: knowledge, skills, and attitude (Lackeus, ). Within these broad categories, we can address all of the NACE competencies that the university already emphasizes while add- ing skills that are more specific to the entrepreneurial mindset—a mindset that allows students to be innovative in any field they choose to enter after graduation. The dominant models have been New Venture Creation (NVC) and Skills for Transitioning (SFT), both of which incorpo- rate entrepreneurial training into an arts curriculum to support students’ post-graduate career goals. While NVC and SFT approaches target valuable knowledge and skills, we have focused on how art can cultivate an entrepreneurial attitude more generally (Barrie & Prosser, ). In other words, we are asking how we can export art learning, rather than importing lessons from business, to cultivate the entrepreneurial mindset expected of graduates across disciplines (Blenker et al., ). The synergy between arts education and entrepreneurial training does not force a choice, but strengthens each practice (Gangi, ; Hart, ). Reframing Arts Entrepreneurship Outcomes: Beyond Arts Careers What does an entrepreneurial mindset, cultivated through art, look like? As Laura Zabel () argued, “Most actual definitions of entrepreneur don’t start with the business-minded, tech- start-up-in-a-hoodie, capital-driven picture that is commonly imagined; most definitions start with opportunity, and risk, and initiative. That more elemental definition suits most artists per- fectly” (p. ). Other scholars have similarly argued that arts entrepreneurship education sup- ports more general/generic learning outcomes (Pollard & Wilson, ). Indeed, for competen- cies centered in creativity and problem solving, the arts have an unfair advantage in the fact that ARTIVATE 9.2 9 the practice of these skills is self-reinforcing. As students witness the range of meaningful ways to deploy their creative skills, they build their confidence and begin to push for bolder ideas and more ambitious innovation. As they see the benefits of these competencies enhance their non- art studies, they can imagine new career paths. These skills have no disciplinary boundaries, but they give our students an innovative edge (Frenette, ). We have found that cultivating creative problem solvers and skilled communicators pre- pares our students in ways that escape traditional degree models. A turning point in this discov- ery process came during the  American Society for Engineering Education Northeast Sec- tion conference at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. A group of Furman design students were facilitating a workshop on design thinking that was largely attended by engineers. These were thinkers engaged in fascinating research, but they had difficulty talking about their work and making it comprehensible and relevant to a larger, more general audience. The miss- ing piece was someone trained to craft an inspirational, empathetic, effective visual and verbal narrative that would connect the lab to the rest of the world. Indeed, economist Felipe Buitrago Restrepo predicts that, in years to come “Developing a creative ecology in which the myriad of possibilities presented by these new technologies—from advanced materials to energy storage and the Internet of things—make sense to the average person will be a major challenge. That work will be based on increased ‘coopetition’ between artists and creatives” (Restrepo, , pp. –). We see this role as one we can prepare our students to fill, branching out from art as a place of making and looking into innovation and entrepreneurship; our art department, as part of a liberal arts campus, is becoming a place where students learn how to make connections—be- tween ideas and between people—as well as a bastion for creativity and imagination. Program Changes Many Furman students reported an interest in the arts upon arriving at the university, but were only enrolling in art courses as electives, often in their junior or senior year. Exploring this trend led us to understand how these talented, smart, curious, resilient, and driven students had been talked out of pursuing their interest in art. They had accepted the common but false narrative that art is frivolous, a waste of time, and certain to lead to underemployment. Having been ac- cepted to an expensive private school, they majored in what they perceived as practical subjects like business, political science, communication studies, and the sciences. They were deeply in- terested in art, but wary. Design thinking has served as our primary model for curriculum design and has trickled down into the structure and execution of our courses. By following the steps of empathy (un- derstanding our students), definition (isolating the main problem to solve), ideation (brain- storming a wide net of solutions), prototyping (through small course adjustments and extracur- ricular activities and workshops), testing (in partnership with the university’s Office of Institutional Assessment and Research), and implementation (department-wide adjustments, reflection, future planning) we are tackling some of the pressing issues facing arts education— ARTIVATE 9.2 10 and liberal arts institutions—in a manageable fashion that preserved our primary identity as an art department and respected the integral value of our field. To this end, we have eliminated barriers to study, clarified learning objectives within our curricular, cocurricular, and extracur- ricular offerings, and clarified our message. Eliminating Barriers to Study Our –level classes have no prerequisites and do not need to be taken in a particular order. While a simple step, reworking the way a student could take these introductory surveys allowed this portion of our student body to experience the deep relevance of the arts first-hand. Simi- larly, we offer several –level classes without prerequisites. Since , approximately two- thirds of students enrolled in art courses were not art majors; non-majors outnumber arts ma- jors in both – and –level courses. By eliminating a rigid curricular path and reducing prerequisites, we have made it easier for students to incorporate arts courses into their studies. Now, whether students take an art class and declare a major, or simply benefit from that singular experience, we are part of a larger conversation on celebrating creativity and cultivating a humanistic self. Ironically, by reducing the pressure to increase the size of our department and simply focusing on the joys of making and generating knowledge, we have extended our influence and connected with a broader range of students. Opening up our major has encouraged students with divergent interests to make art; we encourage them to integrate their other areas of growing expertise and reflect on how their unique position impacts their thinking. Then we explore how to leverage that point of view and connect to others. These skills have no disciplinary boundaries and they give our students an innovative edge (Frenette, ). Addressing Our Learning Objectives While most of our changes have been small-scale and incremental, they are predicated on the decision to embrace our identity as a BA program. Traditionally, our studio BA was based on a BFA model, a material-based curriculum that strained faculty and students as they attempted to complete comprehensive foundational training and specialization. This approach failed to address the needs of our students, most of whom do not become professional fine artists. By condensing our foundation courses and designing a more flexible progression of upper-level courses, not only were we better positioned to integrate with programs and departments across campus, but professors now had room in their courses to highlight the development of imagi- nation and creativity. As a result, our studio classes allow students to focus on generating ideas rather than simply improving technique. Art history courses emphasize methodologies and crit- ical thinking over the simple mastery and reinforcement of canonical knowledge. We ensure that students learn the necessary material as they progress throughout their time at Furman, but we stress critical thinking and problem solving as the primary learning outcomes. This deem- phasizes product to focus on process—ideating, creating, and making over technical perfection. ARTIVATE 9.2 11 (As a side note, we believe this flexibility and introspection, coupled with an experimental atti- tude that embraces risk and potential failure, provide the further benefit of modeling behaviors we hope to instill in our graduates.) Curricular Changes We have embraced both traditional arts entrepreneurship educational experiences and embed- ded entrepreneurial mindset training throughout our curriculum, so that courses offer both hard technical skills and soft skills, such as management (Ghazali & Bennett, ). In – , we debuted a business-based “Success in the Arts” course that roadmaps practical paths within creative fields. This is perhaps our most traditional approach to arts entrepreneurship, as it teaches skills related to professional arts careers and business development (Beckman, ). This approach is not limited to studio arts: our art history faculty have similarly reconsid- ered their disciplinary work to emphasize not only the material learned, but the potential for entrepreneurial learning experiences and the creative generation of new information. In , we began a collaboration with the estate of a local visual artist, Matthew Baumgardner. In addi- tion to his studio/living space, the estate included a considerable body of artwork, as well as personal and business papers. Students enrolled in a new course on curatorial practices had the opportunity to conduct primary source research and curate an exhibition of Baumgardner’s work. That exhibition, which was accompanied by a published catalog of student essays, opened in a campus gallery space and served as a center for ongoing cultural programs and events. While these students exercised the same primary skills that could be found in a typical art history course, the projects were framed to emphasize their agency and the creative process of archival research, visual interpretation, and curation. With little previously-published research on their subject, students were generating new knowledge. The typical project management of a research project took on new dimensions with the unpredictability of archival work, adding a new level of challenge within the semester timeline that required flexibility from the students. To further underscore the skills developed, students worked with the university’s internship program director, who facilitated two class sessions that worked to translate learning experi- ences into marketable skills on a resume and cover letter. Both of these courses drew students from a range of majors; this suggests that we are effec- tively shifting campus-wide perceptions of arts education and the importance of creative train- ing for career success. Working with our institution, we are collecting data that will help us better understand the changing perception of art courses, as well as their outcomes and benefits, for a range of Furman students. We have also worked to integrate skills into preexisting arts courses. For example, visual literacy is a practice rooted in traditional art history that has broader, but not often advertised, implications for entrepreneurial learning. Visual literacy builds interpretative and communica- tive skills, in addition to increasing basic observational abilities. While liberal arts institutions are well grounded in textual literacy, there is a common assumption that visual literacy is an ARTIVATE 9.2 12 intuitive skill; we have worked to counter this narrative and to demonstrate how art historical training provides competencies that transcend disciplinarity (Archino, ). The visual liter- acy skills of observation and communication have been highlighted through classroom exer- cises, writing assignments, and reflection prompts throughout certain courses within the art history curriculum. These simple additions do not require an extensive in-class investment of time or resources, but they have been crucial in providing a larger context for the study of art history and demonstrated the relevancy of the discipline, even to students who will not continue in the field. This represents a subtle pedagogical shift, as the practices of close looking, analysis and synthesis, and communication were always central to the discipline. Additional visual literacy programs have been adopted, led by art history faculty, in grad- uate studies for Community Engaged Medicine at Furman University, along with Clemson’s School of Nursing and Prisma Health’s Family Medicine residency, providing further evidence to students, parents, and administration that these are powerful educational opportunities with relevance to highly specialized, non-art fields. We have also been invited to share this arts-based approach within programming led by Furman’s Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Once more, this was more of a shift in practice than a revolution. After analyzing our cur- riculum and programming, we realized that we were already offering entrepreneurial develop- ment through co- and extracurricular activities, but we could better emphasize how students were developing entrepreneurial skills in addition to the course material. This goes beyond the usual ways we help connect our students to career opportunities, such as our speaker series with fine artists, professional creatives, and entrepreneurs or workshops on marketing, internships, and career readiness. Today, when we talk to a student about course offerings, we do not neces- sarily highlight the knowledge or technical skills they are learning about the subject area, instead we start by highlighting the competencies gained through the class structure, material, and re- search. So when a student asks, “why should I take art history?,” our departmental response includes examples that demonstrate communication, problem-solving, teamwork, and global fluency; these were always present in an art history course but naming them helps to make the class more compelling and valuable to a Gen Z mindset. Interdisciplinary Initiatives We have also dismantled some programmatic barriers that kept our extracurricular events lim- ited to the art department. The “Sleep When You're Dead” –hour Brand Marathon and Pitch was created four years ago to build a platform for students in different majors to intersect and solve creative problems. Typically, students from majors in communication studies, business, and art apply, although other departments are often represented. The event always begins with a prestigious keynote speaker, who gives a talk centered around the advantages of a liberal arts education for optimal creative success. This gives students a chance to hear how their broader education can translate into a creative and fruitful career. Then the students break up into teams of three—most recently these teams were paired with a student from our Master of Art in Stra- tegic Design—and given a creative brief. Students then stay up all night to create a deliverable ARTIVATE 9.2 13 in the form of a professional presentation deck and built prototypes. They present the following day to a panel of judges, who award prizes based on their team's ability to solve the challenge as outlined in the creative brief. The highest honor is the Innovation Award, given to the team that not only answers the creative brief but creates a product that solves additional problems or addresses other needs within the product's marketplace. The Innovation Award moves the team on to the Furman University Paladin Pitch competition, where they develop a business plan to scale the product, which is eligible for up to , in seed money to develop their concept. In , this compe- tition drew additional funding from community investors and was the largest such event in the state, providing an exciting and highly visible stage for the interdisciplinary and creative-based entrepreneurial spirit we have embraced. In , we extended this interdisciplinary, team-based approach with the inauguration of a graduate program in strategic design. This Master of Arts program differs from traditional MFA degrees in that the professional development components and artistic training are inte- grated with theory and the liberal arts ethos. The course of study was collaboratively designed with faculty from communication studies, English, and business, as well as the art department. We routinely partner with the university’s Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, partici- pating in their programs and integrating their expertise into student projects and events. Stu- dents move between our campus at Furman and the Miami Ad School @ Portfolio Center in Atlanta, where the portfolio-centered curriculum allows them to build a professional practice while promoting our core principles of curiosity, experimentation, and innovation. The pro- gram is truly interdisciplinary and adaptable, providing a space for creative thinking while demonstrating the clear market value of an arts education. Micro-Interventions While the types of curricular and cocurricular initiatives listed here are important, we’d like to call attention to micro-interventions, changes in language, and the use of focus and reflection that help center arts education as a meaningful component in the development of an entrepre- neurial mindset. These are also sustainable for smaller departments in liberal arts schools. For example, the studio arts offer experiential opportunities to fail and recover as intrinsic to the process of creating work. Embracing failure, or even celebrating it, is necessary to estab- lish proper studio practice and has been emphasized across our curriculum. Faculty have worked to change the perception of failure to make it a necessary part of the creative process and an opportunity to exercise new thinking and skills. In turn, this fosters a greater creative ethos, as students feel empowered to experiment, innovate, recognize failure, and continue to work. Particularly for Generation Z students, who are grade-conscious and mindful of the costs of their education, shifting their understanding of failure and teaching resilience provides a wide range of benefits. Our students begin with a fear of failure that can be paralyzing. Underclass- men, in particular, are highly concerned with the finished product and meeting the expectations of the professor. In the arts, this is counterproductive to our true learning objectives. ARTIVATE 9.2 14 Beyond improving student output, this attitude has important ramifications for students as they graduate. Traditional preprofessional training “is no longer enough to prepare students to thrive in a rapidly changing world,” writes Supiano (), adding: “Students may be inclined to play it safe, but what they probably need is to be stretched. Graduates in all fields will need to bring fresh insights to open-ended challenges and to know how to navigate uncertainty. They will need to be creative” (p. ). A Hybrid Model Thus, while we have shifted certain aspects of our Studio and Art History curriculum, reducing pre-requisites, creating flexible major requirements, and focusing on the processes of art rather than notions of complete mastery, much of the work has been more subtle. Our program has developed new programming to reflect entrepreneurial development alongside traditional pro- fessional development (Beckman, ). While components are embedded into individual courses, extracurricular activities also create a synthesis between short-term projects and long- term learning objectives. We have developed programming that reaches outside of the depart- ment to attract students, and once they are in the department, reminds them how these compe- tencies connect back outward, making the boundaries between majors more fluid. Across the board, we engage in a continuous conversation about not only what students will learn to do during these experiences, but what students can do with that new knowledge. We have needed to adjust how we measure our success. Rather than counting majors, we are looking at broader enrollment figures and celebrating the impact of arts training on students who benefit from its creative exercise but do not pursue arts-related employment. Rather than see that as a failure of arts education, we see it as the expansion of our campus footprint and a valuable contribution that we make to the larger goals of the liberal arts institution. Major Maps To support better transparency about our learning objectives and help undergraduates connect their art studies to larger academic and professional goals, we developed experiential major maps for studio and art history that make visible the expectations and outcomes from their curricular paths (Figures , ). Students readily understand the ideas and techniques taught in each major, but they rarely understand the value they can gain that goes beyond the mastery of coursework. The visual, big- picture overviews of the major use language from the four-year individualized pathways that form the core of the Furman Advantage, so students receive specific departmental information but can connect it with larger institutional messaging. This project has since been expanded across the university. Each major map outlines the courses needed for the major along with the extracurriculars, research, and internships that foster holistic growth over four years. The maps also include in- formation about jobs, salary, and alumni testimonials to demonstrate some of the opportunities ARTIVATE 9.2 15 students might pursue in the future. Since the university stresses the development of NACE competencies, rather than concentrating only on hard technical knowledge, the major maps amplify the role of the arts within the larger liberal arts mission. These major maps make it easier to understand the value our department can bring to areas outside the specific area of study and can help art and art history majors to articulate how their studies connect to their future plans. They showcase the experiences and soft skills that enable art students to maximize their educational investment and cultivate in-demand competencies that will make them flexi- ble, creative innovators and leaders. Assessment To assess the impact of these changes, the art department is partnering with Furman’s Office of Institutional Assessment and Research to develop tools that will capture information on indi- vidual course changes, student perception, and data on majors and non-majors taking courses in the department. We are also compiling First Destination Survey data, collecting information on post-graduate employment or study, with assistance from the Malone Center for Career En- gagement. STUDIO ART MAJOR MAP STUDIO ARTS BUILDS THE FURMAN ADVANTAGE DEVELOPS: Credits of Visual Language WE PREPARE GRADUATES TO: Photography Related Independent Artist Education Graphic Design Related WHERE WILL I GO? CONCENTRATIONS Graphic Design Think di!erently, solve problems, and strengthen their creative muscle. WHO WE ARE The Art Department is a vibrant collaborative environment that encourages creative innovation and entrepreneurship analysis making and reflection. We are focused on developing interdisciplinary creative thinkers and problem-solvers who are adaptable and successful in their lives outside of Furman. Our primary goal is to support, encourage and mentor students through their educational pathways while championing the Arts. 1 2 3 Learn visual literacy – how to observe, analyze, and communicate information either in words or images. Understanding how images operate changes one’s perception of the world around us. 12:1 Student Faculty Ratio 70% of Art Majors are double majors 90% have had an internship by graduation The world needed more designers. Design blended everything I had loved with math, technology and art. Design was everything that I had been interested in and loved all wrapped up into one field. - Rowan Griscom ‘17 WH ER E C AN I GO ? OU R AL IU MN I • Artist (exhibiting, maintaining studio, artist residencies) • Arts managment • Art/Creative Entrepreneurship • Art direction, creative director, graphic designer, brand manager • Art therapy • Brand Strategist • Cartoonist or political cartoonist • Commercial photographer • UX designer • Content manager • Copywriter • Craft design and production (jewelry design, ceramics, furniture design) • Illustration (technical, editorial, scientific, children’s book) • Interior design • Museum or gallery curator • Photojournalism • Public relations, marketing, account managment • Retail display and concept promotion • Stage or set design • Surface designer (fabric, wallpaper, carpets) • Teaching at public/private, K-12 (BA with teacher certification) • Teaching at college level (MFA/PhD for tenure track) *Percentage of alumni in the field* Other 12 4 4 8 4 12 4 Credits of Drawing Credits of Photography Credits of History of Western Art Credits of Senior Seminar Photography Printmaking Painting Sculpture Ceramics 2% 12% 6% *14% undecided* Credits of Studio Art and Art History Credits of Art Criticism MA JO R BY TH E N UM ER S Career Outcomes: 33%30% 16%4% 3% Graduate Degrees: Employment Hours: 50% of our alumni chose to further their education 66% of our alumni work full time in the arts Drawing 36% 12% 4% 10% IDENTITY & PURPOSE AGENCY & INTEGRITY INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY & CREATIVITY CIVIC & GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: making art, 24 Hour design competition, art historical research and writing Communication Skills: making art and visual messaging, visual literacy coursework, art history research, curatorial projects, client presentations, artist talks, Furman Engaged Teamwork/Collaboration: collaborative class projects, 24 Hour design competition, curatorial projects, work study, undergraduate research projects, community-engaged projects, local exhibitions Leadership/Initiative: student groups and clubs, curatorial projects, internships, study away, undergraduate research Figure 2 Figure 2 ARTIVATE 9.2 16 Within the body of art majors, survey data supports the impact of our emphasis on culti- vating an entrepreneurial mindset. In the most recent senior exit survey (Spring ), one hundred percent of respondents said they felt “very well-prepared” “to think differently and solve problems creatively” and “to engage with the world in productive ways with curiosity, initiative, and persistence.” Seventy-one percent directly credited their coursework in the art department for developing creativity and working with critical feedback. To measure larger impact outside of the department, we are developing a metric based on the Communication Skills Attitude Scale (CSAS) (Rees et al., ). The CSAS was developed in  to track the impact of communication skills teaching within medical school, through a series of questions that assess the student opinion of these skills and their relevance to their professional practice. This assessment tool was selected for our model because of its interdisci- plinary, competency-based approach; in measuring the importance of communication skills within clinical training, its developers have recognized a trajectory similar to what we anticipate: students are initially skeptical of the relevancy of this training to their larger career goals; through the training protocol, they recognize the unanticipated complications intrinsic to com- munication and the impact this bears on their own area of specialization; and ultimately they gain a recognition of the importance of this training as a transferable skills with deep implica- tions for their professional practice. Our department tool is in development and will be em- ployed in courses during the – academic year; results will be compared with data cur- rently collected through university assessment. Conclusion Our approach capitalizes on the intrinsic similarities between arts education and entrepreneur- ial education as experiential programs that cultivate attitudes of the mind and decenter the au- thority of the professor-as-expert to place more of the learning experience on the shoulders of the student. If they are to succeed in an entrepreneurial world, we need to train them in that practice (Dempster, ). Furthermore, in a changing field of employment where disciplinary skills are secondary to transferrable, transdisciplinary skills, the arts have new relevancy: “Our modes of expression and inquiry are very closely aligned with the real world, a world that the academy is struggling to remain engaged with” (Squier, , p. ). By foregrounding the essential skills that are intrinsic to the making and discussion of art (among them creativity, an embrace of failure, cultivation of empathy and curiosity, the build- ing of confidence and mindfulness, acceptance of vulnerability, and a true joy of making) we have established the fine arts as an answer to the needs of our students, providing them with entrepreneurial skills that enrich any future career path. In thinking about entrepreneurship as not defined by business practice, but as a way of creating value, we can amplify the lessons learned in arts education and make them relevant to a wide spectrum of post-graduate plans (Timmons, ; Gangi, ; Kuratko, *+*+). Arts programs risk being siloed when they focus on technical skills that have limited appli- cation across campus. Yet, much as the ability to pull together disparate threads to unite broadly ARTIVATE 9.2 17 ranging ideas and narratives is central to the identity of a liberal arts college, it is also the heart of a studio art practice. It is the way an art historian understands how and why artists have worked across millennia. This simple act of reframing our practices and our teaching embodies what we want our students to do. The future does not lie in producing graduates who will think just like us, but rather innovators who will be flexible in the changing decades ahead. These changes have rippled across campus, making the arts a more valuable player in empowering student innovation and preparing our graduates to be leaders in a future we cannot predict. References Barrie, S. C., & Prosser, M. (2004). Generic graduate at- tributes: Citizens for an uncertain future. Higher Ed- ucation Research and Development, 23(3), 243–246. https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/0729436042000235373 Archino, S. (2020). Addressing visual literacy in the sur- vey: Balancing transdisciplinary competencies and course content. Art History Pedagogy & Practice, 5 (1), 1–16. https://academic- works.cuny.edu/ahpp/vol5/iss1/3 Beckman, G. D. (2007). “Adventuring” arts entrepre- neurship curricula in higher education: An examina- tion of present efforts, obstacles, and best practices. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.3200/jaml.37.2.87- 112 Beckman, G. D. (2011). So, what’s the point? An intro- ductory discussion on the desired outcomes of arts entrepreneurship education. In D. G. Beckman (ed.), Disciplining the arts: Teaching entrepreneurship in context (pp. 177–184). Rowman and Littlefield Pub- lishers, Inc. Beckman, G. D., & Essig, L. (2012). Arts entrepreneur- ship: A conversation. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepre- neurship in the Arts, 1(1), 1–8. Birnkraut, G. (2018). The new socio-cultural entrepre- neurs: At the crossroads between social enterprises and arts entrepreneurship. In E. Innerhofer, H. Pechlaner, & E. Borin (eds.), Entrepreneurship in Culture and Creative Industries: Perspectives from Companies and Regions (pp. 171–183). Springer. Blenker, P., Trolle Elmholdt, S., Hedeboe Frederiksen, S., Korsgaard, S., & Wagner, K. (2014). Methods in en- trepreneurship education research: A review and in- tegrative framework. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-06-2014-0066 Bridgstock, R. (2013). Not a dirty word: Arts entrepre- neurship and higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2–3), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022212465725 Colon, C. (2018) What you’re really learning. Profes- sional Artist Mag, 69–73. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AA- XMtslwTzgIQnBbdUUBmTzHtacVqBu/view Dempster, D. (2011). Some immodest proposals (and hunches) for conservatory education. In D. G. Beckman (ed.), Disciplining the Arts: Teaching Entre- preneurship in Context (pp. 3–16). Rowman and Lit- tlefield Publishers, Inc. Essig, L. (2009). Suffusing entrepreneurship education throughout the theatre curriculum. Theatre Topics, 19(2), 117–124. Essig, L. & Guevara, J. (2016). A landscape of arts entre- preneurship in US higher education. Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities. https://herbergerinsti- tute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/a_land- scape_of_arts_entrepreneurship_in_us_higher_edu- cation_0.pdf Foumberg, J. (2016). Why failure is being taught in art schools. Chicago Magazine. Retrieved September 2, 2020. https://www.chicagomag.com/arts-cul- ture/April-2016/Why-Failure-Is-Being-Taught-in- Art-Schools/ Frenette, A. (2017). Arts graduates in a changing econ- omy. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(12), 1455– 1462. Furman University. (2019). The Furman Advantage. https://www.furman.edu/furman-advantage/ Gangi, J. (2015). The synergies of artistic and entrepre- neurial action. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 45, 247–254 Gangi, J. (2017). Towards Consensus: Suggested Founda- tional Building Blocks for Arts Entrepreneurship Re- search and Pedagogy. Artivate: A Journal of Entre- preneurship in the Arts, 6(1), 46–62. Ghazali, G., & Bennett, D. (2017). Employability for mu- sic graduates: Malaysian educational reform and the focus on generic skills. International Journal of Mu- sic Education, 35(4), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761416689844 Hart, J. (2018). Classroom Exercises for Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing. Kuratko, D.F. (2020). Entrepreneurship theory, process, & practice (11th ed.). Cengage Publishers. Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. Entrepreneurship360, OECD, France. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneursh ip-in-Education.pdf Loveland, E. (2017). Instant generation. Journal of Col- lege Admission, 235, 34–38 ARTIVATE 9.2 18 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1142068.pdf National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2020). Career readiness defined. https://www.nace- web.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-read- iness-defined/ National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Fast facts: Most popular majors. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37 Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The Scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepre- neurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286 Petrone, P. (2019, December 31). The skills companies need most in 2019—and how to learn them. LinkedIn Learning. https://learn- ing.linkedin.com/blog/top-skills/the-skills-compa- nies-need-most-in-2019--and-how-to-learn-them Pollard V., Wilson, E. (2013). The ‘entrepreneurial mind- set’ in creative and performing arts higher education in Australia. Artivate 3(1), 3–22. Rees, C., Sheard, C., & Davies, S. (2002). The develop- ment of a scale to measure medical students’ attitude towards communication skills learning: The com- munication skills attitude scale (CSAS). Medical Ed- ucation, 36, 141-147. https://pdfs.seman- ticscholar.org/33fc/ef5bef04dfa0cf2e56375d8826311 69d199c.pdf Restrepo, F. B. (2015). Arts & the workforce. In C. Lord (ed.). Arts and America: Arts, culture, and the future of America’s communities (pp. 65–78). Americans for the Arts. Supiano, B. (2020). The creativity challenge: Teaching stu- dents to think outside the box. Chronicle of Higher Education. Squier, J. (2010). Art & innovation: Claiming a new and larger role in the modern academy. In D. G. Beck- man (ed.), Disciplining the Arts: Teaching Entrepre- neurship in Context (pp. 35–42). Rowman and Little- field Publishers, Inc. Timmons, J. A., & Spinelli S., (2003). New venture crea- tion: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Ir- win/McGraw-Hill. Toscher, B. (2019). Entrepreneurial learning in arts en- trepreneurship education: A conceptual framework. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 8 (2), 3–22. Vakharia, N., Sockley, G., & Zabel, L. (2016). Meaning- making and arts entrepreneurship. Artivate: A Jour- nal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 5(2), 3–6. https://artivate.org/artivate/article/view/53/45 Wassall, G. & Alper, N. (2018). The importance of a col- lege major in the arts to artistic success (NEA work- ing paper). Retrieved from ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publica- tion/333702500_NEA_Working_Paper_2018_- _The_Importance_of_a_College_Ma- jor_in_the_Arts_to_Artistic_Success White, J. C. (2013). Barriers to recognizing arts entrepre- neurship education as essential to professional arts training. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 2 (3), 28–39. White, J. C. (2015). Toward a theory of arts entrepre- neurship. Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Educa- tion, 1(1), 4–23. Zabel, L. (2016). Meaning-making and arts entrepreneur- ship. Perspectives on Arts Entrepreneurship, part 3. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 5(2), 5–6. Cover image: Marta Lanier