VOL. 13 2024–2025 Creative Social Entrepreneurship Curriculum Development A Case for Democratizing Arts Administration Education Jaleesa Wells University of Kentucky Rachel Shane University of Kentucky ABSTRACT: While entrepreneurship in education continues to grow, the arts and arts administration fields are trailing behind new, innovative, and enterprising curriculum development and progress. The continued rise of online learning environments creates opportunities for dynamic partnership development that democratizes the current structures of entrepreneurship education within the arts. This article presents the case of creative social entrepreneurship curriculum development as an opportunity to democratize arts administration education, highlighting the innovative online learning approach of the Department of Arts Administration at the University of Kentucky. It outlines the background of the emerging arts and entrepreneurship education landscape and specifically highlights the opportunity gap to develop an enterprising culture across arts and arts administration curriculum and in partnership with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), which presently lack arts administration and entrepreneurship curricula in their art and design programs. Importantly, the article illustrates the possibilities of transdisciplinary curriculum development through the creation of an online certificate series in creative social entrepreneurship and provides the concepts, context, and framework for curriculum development. The value of democratizing curriculum development is through innovative approaches within cross-institutional partnerships within and between institutions. As such, this article highlights the possibilities of building partnerships with HBCUs as part of the development process for the creative social entrepreneurship certificate program series. KEYWORDS: creative social entrepreneurship, democratizing education, arts administration, SDG 4: quality education. DOI: doi.org/10.34053/artivate.13.1.215 ARTIVATE 13 2 Introduction Entrepreneurship remains one of the top competencies in the cultivation of dynamic leaders across industries, sectors, and economies. However, entrepreneurship education has been underdeveloped as a comprehensive curriculum within arts, arts administration, and creative and cultural industries (CCI) education. Furthermore, as interests in social progress, sustainability, and responsibility continue to rise, there is an emerging interest in the intersections between the arts and social entrepreneurship in both research and practice. Yet, there has been little to no attention paid to the educational opportunities of teaching social entrepreneurship to artists and creative practitioners. This article and the case presented illustrate the process of developing certificate programs in creative social entrepreneurship, focusing on curriculum development and cross-institutional partnerships for the sustainable future of entrepreneurship education. The gap in curriculum presents the following main questions: what are the best practices for developing a social entrepreneurship curriculum geared towards artists and creative practitioners, and what are the democratizing opportunities for cross- institutional partnerships in certificate program development? The majority of educational programs in the arts focus on developing artistic skills and practices within particular arts disciplines, such as acting programs in theatre, performance and composition programs in music, and studio art programs in the visual arts. Because of the focus on developing artistic practices, these programs are largely missing any educational courses on developing a career as an artist. Unless students seek out experiential learning opportunities, such as internship and apprenticeship programs, career readiness is lacking in art students’ educational development. Furthermore, art students rarely have the opportunity to develop entrepreneurship competencies as part of their arts educational curriculum. Emerging from empirical research on past and present creative social entrepreneurs and enterprises, creative social entrepreneurship as a curriculum can be described as the skills-based practice of establishing new ventures that combine creative methods with commercial strategies to improve the economic, environmental, political, and social well- being of society. Due to its hybrid nature, there are a plethora of opportunities embedded within this burgeoning field of study, such as the opportunity to establish a transdisciplinary enterprising culture for students and the opportunity to build cross- institutional partnerships with arts programs that may not have the resources to develop entrepreneurship curriculum and that are external to the principal partner. Ultimately, collaborative partnerships serve as mission-driven opportunities to make entrepreneurship accessible to students from marginalized and/or minoritized communities that are sorely underrepresented in the creative and cultural industries, especially the arts. ARTIVATE 13 3 Entrepreneurship Education in the Creative and Cultural Industries Extant literature identifies three distinct approaches to entrepreneurship education in the creative and cultural industries (CCIs). The most widely used in the US is the dual program curricular approach where art students complete courses across two programs of study: their specific art discipline courses and general business courses (Beckman, 2007). An alternative approach that has gained traction in the last decade in the US is the embedded singular course, typically labeled “Arts Entrepreneurship”, within an arts degree curriculum (Ibid). According to empirical studies, a third approach found mostly in the UK and Europe is the enterprising culture (Carey & Naudin, 2006) approach which involves a comprehensive set of courses within degree areas such as creative enterprise, cultural entrepreneurship, and business of the arts. A key difference between these three approaches is that the first two are traditionally established by arts programs and the third exists in business school programs. The objectives of each approach are different. The dual program approach leans towards the application of the arts in business and provides students with a liberal arts perspective wherein being an artist is a parallel practice to doing business. In this approach, entrepreneurship knowledge is decontextualized from the unique enterprise circumstances of the CCIs. Academics have classified this approach as a “new venture creation” approach, as the perceived nature of business school education is to train students towards establishing corporate business structures. As such, art students do not learn the dynamics of entrepreneurial career readiness through self-employment (Beckman, 2007; Rapisarda & Loots, 2021). The singular-course approach aims to remedy this issue by educating art students on the broader conceptions of entrepreneurship and training students in the skill of having an entrepreneurial mindset for their career development (Essig, 2017; Bridgstock, 2012; Chang & Wyszomirski, 2015; Toscher, 2019). However, this approach does not provide a pragmatic understanding of entrepreneurship and positions art students pursuing arts administrative courses to augment their enterprise knowledge outside of coursework. Transcending the previous two approaches, the enterprising culture approach develops an entrepreneurship curriculum that illuminates the dynamics and intricacies of “connect[ing] the individual with their social context,” and it emphasizes a curriculum built upon “personal and social emergence, contextual learning, and the negotiated enterprise” (Rae, 2004, p. 494). This approach offers a comprehensive curricular methodology that is focused on the social science dynamics of artists and art-based enterprises as intertwined, interlinked, and contributive within society. Based on these strategies, the enterprising culture is the best approach for developing a co-curricular and cross-curricular certificate program, as it focuses on the dynamic understanding and application of entrepreneurship within the creative and cultural ARTIVATE 13 4 industries. The enterprising culture approach, though presently limited to business school settings, provides a holistic approach to teaching creative social entrepreneurship because it combines creative individual contributions with socioeconomic and sociocultural values (Raffo et al., 2000). This approach also allows for a curriculum that applies arts-relevant learning structures to an entrepreneurship curriculum, such as the inclusion of a critical review (also known as ‘the crit’, a presentation of student work in progress for the purposes of giving and receiving comprehensive feedback) and a degree show (the exhibition of an art student’s final project) within the learning and assessment model (Carey & Matlay, 2007, p. 440). As such, student outcomes would involve the development of new ventures, the pursuit of a dynamic freelance artistic career, the establishment of a hybrid cultural leadership model, the emergence of a new creative social practice, or a combination of these and more pathways. Furthermore, the enterprising culture curricular approach highlights the possibilities of social innovation emerging from the CCIs. Arts administration, entrepreneurship, and the arts at HBCUs Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are higher education institutions unique to the history of the US and established as safe educational havens for Black students. The majority of HBCUs are located in the southern US and in non-urban and rural areas. Despite there being many established arts programs at HBCUs, there are no established and operating arts administration related programs (Mack, 2020). There is virtually no literature that explores the implications of creative social entrepreneurship education in HBCUs. However, in recent years there has been a rise in HBCU entrepreneurship centers (for example, the PNC National Center for Entrepreneurship established at Howard University in 2021 and the Bank of America Center for Entrepreneurship established at Spelman College in 2021). While the impact of these centers on Black artists and creative professionals has yet to be seen, the implications include greater economic adaptability, resiliency, and opportunity for both Black students and HBCU institutions (Andrews et al., 2015). As Black students become leaders in their industries, there is a major onus on HBCUs to be “catalysts of change in the development and promotion” of Black-owned enterprises (Adebayo et al., 2001, p. 166). Though entrepreneurship development centers provide significant opportunities to students, they are limited by their geographic locations, exclusive to their situated institutions, and mainly present extracurricular programs. They serve as hubs for entrepreneurship learning to a much wider community and are good stewards of business investment from community stakeholders. While these are important forms of non-formal learning, combining them with formal learning opportunities allows for the development of leaders who understand the dynamics of social, legal, environmental, and political decision-making in business (Ibid, 170-171). The formal educational context creates a ARTIVATE 13 5 “‘safe environment’ to develop creative ideas” where experimentation, trial and error, and idea formation and strategic application occur and “ideas [can become] a guiding force for future business activity” (Raffo et al., 2000, p. 356). However, many HBCUs still lack formal entrepreneurship programs and more so lack programs related to the various combinations of art and business. Furthermore, there is a significant gap in the literature that has explored the issues of business literacy amongst HBCU arts graduates. Only a handful of studies have emerged in the last ten years exploring the implications of arts administration, leadership, and management education on Black-owned and Black-led arts and cultural organizations (Mack, 2020; Curtis, 2020; Green, 2017; Wooden, 2016). While entrepreneurship education in the arts has expanded, these programs are still relatively new and not widely available or accessible to all arts-focused students. One possible reason for this gap is due to the lack of available, qualified, skilled faculty able to develop programs and facilitate courses (Carey & Naudin, 2006, p. 524) and sustain a relevant research agenda to inform teaching. Another possible reason is the lack of innovative and adaptable delivery formats and systems. As such, many programs do not have robust online learning systems and processes. The online learning system offers an opportunity to expand the reach of entrepreneurship education in programs that wouldn’t otherwise have access to qualified and experienced faculty, such as arts programs at HBCUs. Context of Online Education in the Department of Arts Administration Arts administration as an academic discipline began offering degrees in the United States in the 1970s. These early degrees were almost all launched in the dual program model utilizing business along with arts courses. The first alternative format arts administration degree program was offered by Goucher College. Launched in 1988, Goucher offered a “low-residency” program where students spent some summer weeks on campus and the rest of the program was offered via telephone conference calls and mailed homework submissions. Twenty years later, two private universities began offering online-based degrees in arts administration. In 2013, the University of Kentucky (“UK”) became the first public state university to offer an online degree in arts administration. This also marked the beginning of non-residential requirements for degrees in arts administration. The MA in Arts Administration at UK offered a 100% online, asynchronous program allowing students to study from anywhere in the world, in any time zone. The MA in Arts Administration was just the third online degree program offered by UK. This required the program be built as a singular course curricular model as there were very limited course offerings online for students and even fewer faculty familiar with ARTIVATE 13 6 online instruction experience.1 While the degree was built in a single course model, the faculty hired to build courses came from transdisciplinary backgrounds. Most faculty held degrees in an artistic discipline (e.g., music, art history, theatre) as well as in business, public policy, law, or the humanities. Few, in these earlier years, had degrees in arts administration because so few degrees were offered at higher education institutions. The department of arts administration While arts administration as both a field and curricular discipline developed in a transdisciplinary approach, the traditional structures of American universities produced obstacles. First, degree programs developed across different colleges; some were set in business schools, others within fine arts or arts and sciences. At UK, the BA degree was developed outside of the department or school as an “interdisciplinary program” embedded within the College of Fine Arts. The interdisciplinary status of the degree aligned philosophically with the transdisciplinary approach to the curriculum. However, it posed logistical and structural obstacles within the higher education bureaucracy. Notably, faculty could not tenure within an interdisciplinary program; rather, faculty must tenure to a department or school. This is not unique to UK. Since faculty had a wide- ranging array of degrees from a variety of academic disciplines, the development of tenured faculty lines was prolonged within an environment unsure of how to categorize its instruction or research. This issue was significant at UK where the first full-time faculty member in the program was denied tenure (a decision later overturned by the university president). As the program grew in size and visibility, hiring also became problematic. Qualified applicants for faculty positions were rejected by the administration because their degrees were outside of the College of Fine Arts (meaning there was nowhere the potential hire could be tenured within the college). With two degrees and a growing need to establish an unambiguous academic discipline, the faculty aligned with the program sought “department status.” This status would allow a broader hiring pool from all transdisciplinary areas and the tenuring of faculty directly in arts administration. It will also permit more extensive curricular offerings under this new curricular umbrella. As of 2016, UK became the first dedicated Department of Arts Administration in the country. 1 The BA in Arts Administration at UK, launched in 1988, was created utilizing the dual program curricular approach. Students completed a curriculum in business, economics, and art form along with several specific courses in arts administration. “Arts administration” course requirements (“AAD courses”) grew from two courses at the program launch to six courses in 2010. As the field evolved and the program grew, more courses were added in arts administration and course requirements in business decreased. As of 2024, the BA now requires over twenty-eight specific courses within the arts administration discipline. While still requiring courses in arts disciplines, the degree no longer relies on business and economics coursework. ARTIVATE 13 7 An Autoethnographic Case of Creative Social Entrepreneurship Curriculum Development Creative social entrepreneurship is a rising field of study combining the concepts of creativity, social value, and enterprise development into a hybrid form of entrepreneurship and organization (Wells 2015, 2019). While more research studies have emerged over the last few years on the unique dynamics of creative social entrepreneurship across the globe (McLean, 2020; Pearse & Peterlin, 2019; Permatasari et al., 2021; Permatasari et al., 2023; Qu & Zollet, 2023), the majority of this research exists outside of the US, leaving a dearth of understanding in the American context. Building upon over ten years of empirical work by Jaleesa (Wells 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2022), creative social entrepreneurship is made up of two distinct but interrelated actors: the creative social entrepreneur and the creative social enterprise operating within the CCIs. Initially, the development of a creative social entrepreneurship curriculum began with the traditional approach to entrepreneurship education within an arts administration program: the single-course approach. However, through a series of conversations between Jaleesa and Rachel, Rachel encouraged Jaleesa to pursue the development of a full certificate program utilizing her research and framing as the basis for the curricular development. Instead of embedding within the current curriculum, as is the usual approach to entrepreneurship education for artists, the certificate would serve as a catalyst for building an enterprising culture within the Department of Arts Administration and College of Fine Arts at UK. This required specific buy-in from the chair, dean, and broader university stakeholders in order to continue. While Jaleesa soft-pitched the course idea to the chair, Rachel, and received departmental buy-in, two key subsequent pitches supported buy-in from the administration for the comprehensive certificate program development: (1) Jaleesa invited the chair, dean, and instructional designer to her final pitch on her creative social enterprise to investors during a 2023 entrepreneurial bootcamp; and (2) Rachel pitched a combined certificate and cross-institutional partnership initiative to the dean when presented with the opportunity to create a Provost-funded curricular initiative within the College of Fine Arts. The success of these two pitches helped to garner key administrative support for what would become further reaching cross-institutional partnering, both across UK and crossing the fields of arts education and arts administration education. In parallel, the success of these two pitches provided grounding for the piloting of a democratized certificate program by gaining buy-in and investment to hire diverse and socially embedded course developers for the seven certificate courses, and time to cultivate cross- institutional partnerships with HBCUs. ARTIVATE 13 8 Curricular design and framework Embracing an enterprising culture philosophy, the curricular design adapts Rae ’s (2004) triadic model for entrepreneurial learning and creates a creative social entrepreneurship curricular development framework that directly aligns with its co-constructed, hybrid dynamics, as shown in Figure 1. The descriptions below also align each theme to program- level learning objectives. The creative and cultural industries as ‘contextual learning’ The creative and cultural industries serve as the contextual learning that surrounds the actions of the two actors of creative social entrepreneurship: the creative social entrepreneur and the creative social enterprise. While there are clear definitions of the creative and cultural industries in parts of Europe, there is no unified definition of them in the United States. As such the industries can be composed of any type of market activity that exists, operates, or intersects with creative activities. This can mean that a freelance designer is as much a part of the creative and cultural industries as a well-established Broadway theatre. In curriculum development, this theme is shaped by learning creative economic dynamics in relation to community, opportunity recognition through creative market Figure 1: A framework for creative social entrepreneurship curriculum development. ARTIVATE 13 9 research, and applied theories of creative and social entrepreneurial action. The program- level learning objective is to connect critical thinking with resourcefulness by analyzing situations and constructing applicable solutions to address economic, environmental, political, and/or social problems in and around the creative and cultural sector. The creative social entrepreneur as ‘personal and social emergence’ A key characteristic of a creative social entrepreneur is their keen interest in and pursuit of opportunities that intersect within hybrid values. They strive to resolve resource constraints through the skill of entrepreneurial bricolage (Di Domenico et al., 2010) and by coupling and merging their intersecting creative, social, and enterprising values and activities (Wells, 2019). The development of an enterprising identity plays a crucial role in the activities, orientation, and operations of the creative social entrepreneur. Their belief and values system and the expressions of their individual selves are influenced by their broader surroundings, such as their interactions within the creative and cultural industries, engagement with communities, educational background, and support systems (Dimitriadis et al., 2017; Nelson et al., 2016; York et al., 2016). The stereotypical expectation to be ‘business-like’ often serves as a hindrance to creative social entrepreneurs and their creative ambitions and social intentions (Wells 2019, 2022). Thus, it is important to build a curriculum that positions creative practice as a bridge between social venturing and income generation. In curriculum development this theme is shaped by the co-construction and practice of a hybrid entrepreneurial identity, identifying opportunities to embed in communities, and the emergence of a hybrid leadership identity. The program-level learning objective is to apply strategic, creative, and persuasive communication skills across a range of dynamic audience, consumer, and stakeholder contexts, as well as to interpret strengths, challenges, and risks within the ideation process, by utilizing a range of creative methods to strategize and implement feasible ideas in new, emerging, or existing creative and cultural markets. The creative social enterprise as ‘negotiated enterprise’ The best description of creative social enterprise is as the organized form that holds, and potentially protects, the activities of a creative social entrepreneur, team, or group of creative social entrepreneurs. This form can take shape as a project, a start-up, a venture, a business, a portfolio of clients, etc., and it can be formally incorporated or informally organized. Creative social enterprise does not have a specific definition due to its adaptability to its hybrid context, which allows creative social entrepreneurs to develop adaptive capacity and strategic innovation skills to meet the needs of their communities (Wells, 2015, p. 12). Developing a creative social enterprise plays a crucial role in understanding the intersections between “creative production, business innovation, financial sustainability, and social empowerment” (Wells, 2015, p. 52). Ultimately, the ARTIVATE 13 10 value of a creative social enterprise lies in its emergent nature, where enterprise value is connected to “understanding structure, stability, and growth” within and between creative and social values (Wells, 2016, p. 13). In curriculum development, this theme is shaped by participation in new creative social venture development; interlinked meaning between creative, social, and enterprise values and practices; negotiated management of hybrid roles and team dynamics; and empowering stakeholder networks. The program-level learning objective is to design a strategic process that communicates their market, leadership, consumer, operational, financial, and innovation knowledge toward the value creation of their creative social enterprise. Utilizing this framework, the online certificates in creative social entrepreneurship combine theoretical and empirical perspectives with the development of practical skills and opportunity recognition for application in real life of new social venture issues faced by those establishing and managing creative social innovation driven enterprises. Each certificate is designed to expand the entrepreneurial experience, knowledge, and skills of creative practitioners and professionals, both emerging and established, who are currently ideating and building new social ventures in the creative and cultural industries. Democratizing Education in Arts Administration: Concluding Insights The transdisciplinary makeup of the department and its innovative approach to online education offers a unique opportunity for faculty to develop curricular programs alongside their research. This opportunity further contributes to the democratization of arts administration education in distinct ways. Firstly, the online learning environment allows students from across the country with diverse backgrounds, and at various stages of their careers, to participate in courses together. This environment significantly expands knowledge development within arts administration, as a particular cohort is widely heterogeneous. Secondly, building new curricular programs based on active faculty research allows for current and future-focused innovation to be embedded and taught to contemporary students. Information and course content are up-to-date, relevant, adaptable, and extremely timely due to this research-informed and applied theory teaching approach. Jaleesa’s research in creative social entrepreneurship is a good example of bridging research with teaching and building educational scope for applied theoretical knowledge. It is at this curricular juncture that the opportunity for cross-institutional partnership development emerged. So, thirdly, the online education approach of the department provides further support for democratizing education by establishing cross-institutional partnerships and making entrepreneurship education accessible to marginalized students who are severely underrepresented in the arts and in arts administration. The ARTIVATE 13 11 transdisciplinarity of the curriculum in creative social entrepreneurship catalyzes the opportunity to establish an enterprising culture in the department and in the field of arts administration, which further creates opportunities for finding course developers and instructors outside of the geographic boundaries and who are deeply embedded in, researching, and practicing creative social entrepreneurship themselves. This particularly addresses the issue of program sustainability as the curricular content can be constructed virtually and ‘move’ with a course author. Overall, the curricular development creates a more nimble, scalable, and multi-faceted learning environment for students, as well as a research-centered teaching environment for faculty. As highlighted, within higher education the bureaucratic and traditional structures and systems can present obstacles to new approaches and innovations within curricular offerings as well as the development of external partnerships. The onus of curriculum development is mainly rooted in the faculty. Faculty are charged with new course and program development as well as modifications to existing curricular offerings. Since faculty are primarily siloed within their departments and schools of like-minded and educated peers, building relationships and partnerships outside the norms can be daunting. It is important for administrators to provide incentives (e.g., internal grant funding) in order to encourage faculty to expand their thinking beyond the department and school boundaries. Partnerships that have emerged from within the curriculum development of creative social entrepreneurship include the opportunity to partner with offices within the university, such as working with course developers from the Arts Extension Office and the Office of Commercialization and Technology. Additionally, there was the opportunity to work across colleges by partnering with our business school at the dean’s level of administration and funding. These partnerships, as mentioned, include the process of negotiating up and across to receive buy-in from the chair, the deans, the offices, and the provost. University administration support is critical to the success of the curricular development and to a much greater process of developing partnerships than what might be expected. In this case, UK’s Provost offered an internal funding program to support activities that were “transdisciplinary in nature,” “innovative,” and “collaborative” (UK 2023). At the time of the funding announcement, the Department of Arts Administration was already aware of and contemplating approaches for two matters that had surfaced within our discipline: the lack of social entrepreneurship support and education for artists and the absence of arts administration programs at HBCUs. Subsequently, the funding call spurred the development of new solutions combining the multiple approaches to create new transdisciplinary outcomes: a creative social entrepreneurship curriculum inclusive of individual courses and certificate programs (undergraduate and graduate), and a pilot partnership program with an HBCU to offer an “add-on” certificate to its arts-practice curriculum. Here, the department was proposing the development of a curriculum in the ARTIVATE 13 12 “new venture creation” approach (as described above) while simultaneously carrying out the complexities of new venture creation within its own creative venture. The curricular concept of creative social entrepreneurship was developed by Jaleesa, a junior faculty member within the Department of Arts Administration who saw the need for the teaching application of her research area. Through discussions, what began as one course on the topic grew into a robust certificate offering. Jaleesa, as a junior faculty member, did not yet have the experience of managing courses or programs through the curricular approval process—a rather arduous and complicated system with eight levels of review and approval. Thus, the first partnership and collaboration began internally between the chair and junior faculty member. The collaboration allowed for mentorship on curriculum development, program delivery considerations, and systems navigation. Development of these innovative offerings is structurally complicated—from collaboration with UK institutional offices and staff members to negotiations about course ownership to partnership formation and trust building, and with the logistical delivery of a program across two different universities in two different states. Externally, partnerships with institutions outside of the university play a crucial role in meeting the wider impact of curriculum development, which is to nurture entrepreneurial knowledge and skill development in future creative social entrepreneurs. We entered into this initiative without a clear external partnership with an HBCU but understood the wider implications that a lack of entrepreneurship and arts administration education has on the growth, development, and progression of the arts. This is especially true in a time when diversity, equity, accessibility, inclusion, and justice are in constant conversation within and around arts organizations and cultural institutions. But in order to build partnerships, there needs to be cultivation and nurturing of a relationship built on trust and mutually beneficial opportunities. Thus far, we have made connections with and are working towards these relationships, finding common ground and meeting needs on both sides. Importantly, the responsibility to catalyze and pursue these partnerships is for us to be flexible and adaptable to build relationships and find commonality with our external partners. Recommendations and Future Developments While we have come far in both the curricular and partnership development of our initiative, there is still much to be accomplished and to learn. We have summarized our case into three themed recommendations for moving forward, as shown below. Recommendation 1: The transdisciplinary online program development There are several factors that contributed to the curricular program development: (1) the impetus of transforming research into teaching and learning, (2) the transdisciplinary makeup of the department allowing for an enterprising culture to emerge, and (3) the ARTIVATE 13 13 robust, dynamic, and established online education approach embedded within the department. The key to leveraging these factors is recognizing the opportunities for curriculum development between them. As such, it is recommended that faculty identify and leverage the opportunities within their departments and across institutions in order to bridge diverse forms of research and learning. Utilizing an entrepreneurial approach to course development by listening to and collaborating with a diverse range of faculty members allows for the creation of impactful curricular development beyond the confines of the institution. Recommendation 2: Partnering within and across the principal institution Factors that allowed for partnering across the institution include the forging of relationships in what can be considered more support-based offices. However, we saw these offices as filled with entrepreneurial resources to embed in the creative and cultural industries from dynamic angles, such as accessing an arts extension artists network and utilizing the innovation resources from the office of technology and commercialization. In our case, we also found these partners to be important contributors to the curriculum development as course developers of one or more courses in the certificate programs. Thus, it is recommended that curriculum developers consider what is outside of their immediate, academic realm of knowledge and resource development. Recommendation 3: Partnership development between collaborating institutions Factors that created the opportunity for collaboration between institutions stem from the first two mentioned above. The transdisciplinary and online curriculum and the partnering within the university allowed a new door to open and directly address the gap in knowledge that many students of color and marginalized practitioners do not presently receive in their arts education experience. It is here that the impact of merging research- informed curriculum, an online learning approach, and cross-institutional partnering fuels a drive towards democratized arts administration education. Thus, it is recommended to leverage this unique opportunity and to build long-lasting relationships that are mutually beneficial between two or more collaborating institutions. ARTIVATE 13 14 References Adebayo, A. O., Adekoya, A. A., & Ayadi, O. F. (2001). Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) as agents of change for the development of minority businesses. Journal of Black Studies, 32(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/002193470103200202 Andrews, D. R., No, S. C., Powell, K. K., Rey, M. P., & Yigletu, A. (2015). Historically Black colleges and universities’ institutional survival and sustainability. Journal of Black Studies, 47(2), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934715622220 Beckman, G. D. (2007). “Adventuring” Arts Entrepreneurship Curricula in Higher Education: An examination 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 Bridgstock, R. (2012). Not a dirty word: Arts entrepreneurship and higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2–3), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022212465725 Carey, C., & Matlay, H. (2007). Entrepreneurs as educators: The Case of the Creative Industries in the UK. Industry and Higher Education, 21(6), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000007783099809 Carey, C., & Naudin, A. (2006). Enterprise curriculum for creative industries students. Journal of Education and Training, 48(7), 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610705908 Chang, W. J., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2015). What is Arts Entrepreneurship? Tracking the Development of its Definition in Scholarly Journals. Artivate, 4(2), 33–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2015.0010 Curtis, M. A. (2020). An Effort to Support Local Racial Diversity in Arts Administration Leadership [Master’s Thesis]. University of Akron. Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social Bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x Dimitriadis, S., Lee, M., Ramarajan, L., & Battilana, J. (2017). Blurring the boundaries: the interplay of gender and local communities in the commercialization of social ventures. Organization Science, 28(5), 819–839. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1144 Essig, L. (2017). Same or different? The “cultural entrepreneurship” and “arts entrepreneurship” constructs in European and US higher education. Cultural Trends, 26(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2017.1323842 Green, P. M. (2017). Increasing the Presence of African Americans in the Arts Administration Field: Models from the for-profit sector [Master’s Thesis]. Drexel University. Mack, I. (2020). PREPARING TO LEAD: Investigating the Need for Arts Leadership Programs at HBCUs. In Association of Arts Administration Educators [EDI Fellowship 2020 Presentation]. AAAE Annual Conference 2020. https://artsadministration.org/edi-fellows/ McLean, H. (2020). Spaces for Feminist commoning? Creative social Enterprise’s enclosures and possibilities. Antipode, 53(1), 242– 259. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12684 Nelson, T., Nelson, D., Huybrechts, B., Dufays, F., O’Shea, N., & https://doi.org/10.1177/002193470103200202 https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934715622220 https://doi.org/10.3200/jaml.37.2.87-112 https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022212465725 https://doi.org/10.5367/000000007783099809 https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610705908 https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2015.0010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1144 https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2017.1323842 https://artsadministration.org/edi-fellows/ https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12684 ARTIVATE 13 15 Trasciani, G. (2016). Emergent identity formation and the co- operative: theory building in relation to alternative organizational forms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(3–4), 286–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1155744 Pearse, N. J., & Peterlin, J. (2019). Artistic creative social entrepreneurs and business model innovation. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrme-07-2018-0036 Permatasari, A., Dhewanto, W., & Dellyana, D. (2021). An agent based model of Creative Social Entrepreneurship Behaviour in the context of creative economy. Jurnal Manajemen Indonesia, 21(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.25124/jmi.v21i1.2536 Permatasari, A., Dhewanto, W., & Dellyana, D. (2023). Creative Social Entrepreneurial Orientation: Developing hybrid values to achieve the sustainable performance of traditional weaving SMEs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2022.2148715 Qu, M., & Zollet, S. (2023). Rural Art Festivals and Creative Social Entrepreneurship. Event Management, 27(8), 1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599523x16830662072107 Rae, D. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: a practical model from the creative industries. Journal of Education and Training, 46(8/9), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410569614 Raffo, C., Lovatt, A., Banks, M., & O’Connor, J. (2000). Teaching and learning entrepreneurship for micro and small businesses in the cultural industries sector. Journal of Education and Training, 42(6), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910010353653 Rapisarda, N., & Loots, E. (2021). A Closer Look into the Scope of Arts Entrepreneurship Education: Is There Any Such Thing as the American and European Approach? Journal of Arts Entrepreneurship Education, 3(2), 6. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/jaee/vol3/iss2/6 Toscher, B. (2019). Entrepreneurial Learning in Arts Entrepreneurship Education: A Conceptual Framework. Artivate, 8(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2019.0003 Wells, J. R. (2015). Creative Social Enterprise in Scotland: An Exploration of how Glasgow’s Creative Social Enterprises Contribute to the Social Economy [Master’s Thesis]. The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Wells, J. R. (2016). Entrepreneurial axiology : hybrid values in creative social enterprise. 39th Annual Conference for the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/61553/ Wells, J. R. (2019). Contextualising social enterprise: hybrid entrepreneuring in the creative industries [PhD Dissertation, University of Strathclyde]. https://doi.org/10.48730/kked- c763 Wells, J. R. (2022). Entrepreneurial Hybridity: Concept and context in creative and cultural organizations. In M. Godwyn (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Sociology of Organizations (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 208–220). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839103261.00020 Wooden, G. E. (2016). Quantifiable Diversity in the Arts: How historically Black colleges and universities (HBCU) can increase diversity in arts administration [Master’s Thesis]. Goucher College. York, J. G., O’Neil, I., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2016). Exploring environmental entrepreneurship: identity coupling, venture https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1155744 https://doi.org/10.1108/jrme-07-2018-0036 https://doi.org/10.25124/jmi.v21i1.2536 https://doi.org/10.3727/152599523x16830662072107 https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410569614 https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910010353653 https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/jaee/vol3/iss2/6 https://doi.org/10.1353/artv.2019.0003 https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/61553/ https://doi.org/10.48730/kked-c763 https://doi.org/10.48730/kked-c763 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839103261.00020 ARTIVATE 13 16 goals, and stakeholder incentives. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 695–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12198 Cover image: photo by Vonecia Carswell on Unsplash, www.unsplash.com/photos/four-person-holding-each-others- waist-at-daytime-0aMMMUjiiEQ https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12198 http://www.unsplash.com/photos/four-person-holding-each-others-waist-at-daytime-0aMMMUjiiEQ http://www.unsplash.com/photos/four-person-holding-each-others-waist-at-daytime-0aMMMUjiiEQ Introduction Entrepreneurship Education in the Creative and Cultural Industries Arts administration, entrepreneurship, and the arts at HBCUs Context of Online Education in the Department of Arts Administration The department of arts administration An Autoethnographic Case of Creative Social Entrepreneurship Curriculum Development Curricular design and framework The creative and cultural industries as ‘contextual learning’ The creative social entrepreneur as ‘personal and social emergence’ The creative social enterprise as ‘negotiated enterprise’ Democratizing Education in Arts Administration: Concluding Insights Recommendations and Future Developments Recommendation 1: The transdisciplinary online program development Recommendation 2: Partnering within and across the principal institution Recommendation 3: Partnership development between collaborating institutions