Artivate:  A  Journal  of  Entrepreneurship  in  the  Arts     Volume  1,  Issue  2   http://artivate.org     pp.  65-­‐77   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   A note to readers: The following article by co-editor Linda Essig was peer reviewed by the Artivate editorial board and edited by Gary D. Beckman. FRAMEWORKS FOR EDUCATING THE ARTIST OF THE FUTURE: TEACHING HABITS OF MIND FOR ARTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP Linda Essig, Arizona State University Abstract This essay looks at pedagogies that can be deployed to teach the habits of mind that support arts entrepreneurship through the lenses of frameworks developed by Gardner, Duening, and Costa & Kallick for conceptualizing ways of thinking. It draws a network of connections between these frameworks for ways of thinking on which are mapped various pedagogies for teaching arts entrepreneurs as employed in educational programs and as described in recent literature. After first briefly summarizing each of these frameworks, I graphically describe the ways these various frameworks may overlap and then offer examples of pedagogies that support the development of entrepreneurial habits of mind for artists and others. Introduction In Five Minds for the Future, Howard Gardner (2008) writes, “I believe that current formal education still prepares students primarily for the world of the past, rather than for the possible worlds of the future” (p. 17). His premise is meant to extend across all disciplines, but nowhere is it more evident than in the contrast between the conservatory arts pedagogy of the past and the emergent pedagogy of arts entrepreneurship education. In the traditional, studiobased model of arts education, the disciplinary talents of students are developed in the studio of a master teacher (Hong, Essig, & Bridgstock, 2011). Gardner however, advocates for teaching “ways of thinking,” of developing adults with “synthesizing and creative capacities” (p. 17). Gardner’s poetic turn of phrase “the possible worlds of the future,” reflects an underlying concept of entrepreneurship: seeing the potential for something to exist in the future that does not exist in the present or, as it is commonly known in the entrepreneurship literature, “opportunity recognition.” This ability to imagine future possibilities, what I have come to term “the future imaginary,” can be nurtured in the classroom to, quoting Gardner (2008) again, “prepare youngsters so that they can survive and thrive in a world different from one ever known or even imagined before” (p. 17). In other words, ways of teaching can lead to ways of thinking. Gardner provides a framework for developing curricula and pedagogy across all disciplines. Classical literature on entrepreneurship (e.g. Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1950; _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Copyright  ©  2013,  the  author               Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Drucker, 1985) provides a framework that is more specific, but not limited in a way that would exclude the arts. In fact, the four fundamental entrepreneurial actions elucidated in that literature: opportunity recognition/discovery; creation (the novel); innovation; and equilibration (of an imbalanced market) are actions as applicable to the arts disciplines and trans-disciplines as to any.1 As Peter Frank (2008) writes “Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behavior are embodied in ‘what’ is accomplished and not ‘where’ or within a specific context. . . . the entrepreneurial act is universal within the private, nonprofit, or public sector” (p. 194). Tom Duening (2010) links Gardner’s five minds specifically to entrepreneurship education. He traces the development of thinking about entrepreneurship from trait theories, through behaviorism, to more recent cognitive theories. He points out that Gardner’s “Five Minds” are developed from meta-categories of cognitive sub-skills that can be used to develop “curricular goals, objectives, and methods” (p. 2) . Duening looks at cognitive theories specific to entrepreneurship to develop his “Five Minds for the Entrepreneurial Future” and begins to suggest ways to build curricula around objectives derived from those five minds. His suggestions, as elucidated following, do not go far enough toward building specific cognitive skills, at least as potentially applicable toward arts entrepreneurship. Costa & Kallick’s (2008) work on K-12 education provides a way of linking the behavioral and cognitive theories through their taxonomy of “Habits of Mind,” or “thoughtful, intelligent action” (p. xxii) in useful ways. This essay looks at pedagogies that can be deployed to teach the habits of mind that support arts entrepreneurship through the lenses of these various frameworks for conceptualizing ways of thinking. I begin to draw a network of connections between these frameworks for ways of thinking on which are mapped various pedagogies for teaching arts entrepreneurs as employed in educational programs and as described in recent literature. After first briefly summarizing each of these frameworks, I graphically describe the way these various frameworks may overlap and then offer examples of pedagogies that support the development of entrepreneurial habits of mind for artists and others. The Multiple Frameworks Gardner’s five minds Gardner (2008) collects ways of thinking into what Duening (2010) calls “synthesized metacategories” (p. 3) that Gardner views as a policy recommendation. Briefly described, these five                                                                                                                 1 One could argue, per Schumpeter (1961/1911), that equilibration is not an action in itself, but rather a result of the creative destruction that occurs after opportunity recognition, creativity, and innovation. I include it here as part of the entrepreneurial process. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         66     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   are: • The Discipline Mind: Gardner views the disciplined mind as master not of the skills of a specific discipline (i.e. subject matter) but rather “a distinctive way of thinking about the world” (p. 30) like a _________[fill in the blank]. • The Synthesizing Mind: Defined as “the ability to knot together information from many different places into a coherent whole” (p. 46). • The Creating Mind: The creating mind is one (or a group of ones) that, “perennially dissatisfied” (p. 83) with the current state, “is willing to pick herself up and “try and try again” . . . to forge creative achievements” (p. 83). Creative achievements, it is worth noting are innovative within a specific domain and subsequently have an influence on that domain (see p. 81). • The Respectful Mind: The respectful mind is not just tolerant, but is sympathetic with and values members of other groups or cohorts. • The Ethical Mind: “The ethical mind looks at oneself in relationship to society” (p. 144). It produces work that Gardner calls “good;” work that is excellent, responsible, and engaging. Figure 1. Gardner’s five minds for the future. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         67     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Duening’s five minds and habits of mind Like Gardner, Duening (2010) delineates five “minds” in an attempt to organize thinking about learning objectives in an entrepreneurship curriculum. While all five are important to developing an entrepreneurial perspective, that is a disciplinarily entrepreneurial mind, only three are cognitive: the opportunity recognizing mind, the designing mind, and the risk-managing mind; one is a characteristic (the resilient mind); and the last is action-oriented: the effectuating mind. Thus, Duening’s approach differs significantly from Gardner’s. That does not, however, mean that these five “minds” are not a useful framework for developing teachable “habits” of mind, which link the cognitive with the behavioral. Duening defines each of his five minds thus: • • • The opportunity recognizing mind: as a form of pattern recognition after Baron (2006)2 The designing mind: “the ability to design a ‘solution’ to a customer’s problem” (p. 11) The risk managing mind: characterized by the ability to evaluate and subsequently minimize risk The resilient mind: “ability to absorb defeat and/or bad news without losing one’s focus on goals and objectives” (p. 13). The effectuating mind: an “orientation toward goal definition and goal achievement” (p. 14). Effectuation can also be thought of as a means-end relationship in which the goal develops from the means as opposed to the causation model in which the means are chosen to produce a specific end (Sarasvathy, 2001), thus effectuation brings us back full circle to recognizing the opportunities that the means provide. •                                                                                                                 2 Baron suggests that entrepreneurs have a unique capacity to use cognitive frameworks to recognize patterns of connection between, for example, demographic changes, technology, and other factors. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         68     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Figure 2. Gardner’s five minds with Duening’s five minds for an entrepreneurial future. Duening’s five minds for an entrepreneurial future are more akin to the “habits of mind” defined by Costa & Kallick (2008) than to Gardner’s cognitive meta-categories as they can be viewed as mindful behaviors or, as noted earlier “thoughtful, intelligent, action” (p. xii). Because entrepreneurship can be viewed as a universal form of human action (Koppll & Minitti, 2008), the action orientation of the habits of mind taxonomy provides another framework for the development of action-oriented entrepreneurship pedagogy. Briefly listed here, Costa & Kallick’s (2008) sixteen habits of mind can be mapped onto Gardner’s five cognitive minds and Duening’s entrepreneurial minds: • • • • • • • Persisting Managing Impulsivity Listening with Understanding and Empathy Thinking Flexibly Thinking about Thinking (Metacognition) Striving for Accuracy Questioning and Posing Problems _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         69     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   • • • • • • • • • Applying Past Knowledge to New Situations Thinking and Communicating with Clarity and Precision Gathering Data Through All Senses Creating, Imagining, Innovating. Responding with Wonderment and Awe Taking Responsible Risks Finding Humor Thinking Interdependently Remaining Open to Continuous Learning Figure 3. Costa & Kallick’s habits of mind mapped on to Gardner’s five minds for the future and Duening’s five minds for an entrepreneurial future. (These are situated so that minds and habits that work together are graphically adjacent.) How, then, do we consider all of these multiple “minds” or “habits of mind” in relation to entrepreneurial behavior, and specifically in the arts and culture sector, and subsequently, how can we “teach” them? Figure 4 illustrates how the Gardner, Duening, and Costa & Kallick’s taxonomies might _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         70     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   relate to one another and subsequently to the entrepreneurial framework of opportunity recognition, creation, innovation, and equilibration or market entry as synthesized from the classic works of Schumpeter (1961/1911) and Kirzner (1973). The delineation between the habits of mind and the entrepreneurial categories is not hard and fast, but provide a tool for seeing the ways in which the trans-disciplinary habits of mind can relate to the disciplinary actions of entrepreneurship. Figure 4. The habits of mind taxonomy as related to four phases of the entrepreneurial process. Pedagogy Having laid out these multiple frameworks as a foundation, the attention of this essay now turns to pedagogic methods for teaching artists the entrepreneurial habits of mind that will support their success as artists. Three pedagogic techniques are discussed and subsequently connected to the multiple frameworks delineated earlier: mentorship, collaborative team projects, and experiential learning through incubated venture creation. Mentorship Mentorship is a key component for training Gardner’s “Disciplined Mind.” It can _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         71     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   encompass “modeling ways of thinking,” and “the provision of timely useful feedback on earlier efforts” (p. 31). It can be likened to coaching or to the teaching of fishing. The mentor, often in an experiential context, shows a student how to cast the line and then offers feedback on the student’s strategy, technique, and results. Thus, the student fisherman eats not just for one night, but has food for a lifetime. The mentor models techniques for self-reflection as well, so that the student can evaluate his or her own results when they work independently upon program completion. Smith (2005) points to the goal orientation of mentorship. Drawing on the ancient relationship between Mentor and Telemachus, Smith notes, “mentoring is intentional” (p. 63). Not only does a good mentoring relationship have goals, goal-setting itself is often one of the learning outcomes of the mentor/protégé relationship. The goal-setting process becomes one of the means toward the larger goal of a successful career in the arts. Thus, the effectuating mind, the mind that looks at (or finds) the available means and develops ends there from can be developed by the mentor/protégée dyad. Mentorship has long been a pedagogic technique for disciplinary training in the arts in which the master teacher guides the student artist in his or her own studio. Kuuskoski (2011) relates such disciplinary training to what he calls “Entrepreneurial Mentorship,” writing that mentorship “helps students develop both a diverse set of skills [i.e. the discipline of their artistic practice] and alertness toward identifying opportunities for impactful arts projects “ (p. 107). Not only the artistic discipline, but the entrepreneurial discipline of opportunity recognition can be developed in the mentor/protégé relationship. The more seasoned mentor may perceive opportunities more readily and using the classical Socratic technique of questioning, guide the protégé toward recognition as well. This concept of alertness to opportunity is understood by Kirzner (1982) to be the propensity to imagine or formulate a vision for the future. Only when one is alert, can the reality if the future be brought into alignment with that which is envisioned. Thus, mentorship can be seen as a pedagogy for the habits of mind in the upper third of Figure 5. These are the habits related to disciplinary thinking, but also effectuation and synthesis. Moving outward to the Costa & Kallick’s habits of mind, mentorship supports thinking and communicating clearly and with precision, striving for accuracy, questioning and posing problems (which in a good mentoring relationship can be a bi-directional activity), applying past knowledge, and others. Simonton’s (1984) social psychological study of artistic creativity finds a positive correlation between artistic eminence and the quantity of mentors, or “masters,” as he calls them in his study. Preliminary data from an arts venture incubator (n=27) likewise suggests that regular, directed, and active mentoring can be correlated with venture success. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         72     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Figure 5. Three signature pedagogies mapped onto the habits of mind taxonomy. Collaborative team projects Learning to work collaboratively is not only practical, but is also supportive of entrepreneurial behavior, especially in the areas of creativity and innovation. Some research indicates that groups produce more novel ideas than individuals working separately. Groups provide a fertile ground for the emergence of novel ideas (Meisek & Haefliger, 2011). To be successful in developing novel ideas, groups should be heterogenous rather than homogenous. A tendency to focus on commonalities rather than differences inhibits the development of new ideas (Paulus & Nijstad, 2006) and can lead to what organizational behaviorists call “Groupthink.” From George Orwell’s 1984, Groupthink is the inhibition of creativity by seemingly automatic consent to the majority view. If Groupthink can be avoided, rich novel ideas can emerge. As Nemeth and Kwan (1984) have shown, exposure to minority judgment in groups produces more original associations. If creativity is understood as the generation of novel ideas, then ideation skills are at the foundation of creativity. These can be practiced in group brainstorming exercises. Ward (2004) looks at three forms of creative cognitive processes that support entrepreneurship: conceptual _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         73     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   combination, developing analogies, and problem formulation. Brainstorming groups in an arts entrepreneurship classroom can exercise these techniques. Groups may be asked to combine lists of preexisting concepts or products in new ways or think of new ones, find analogies between new or existing concepts, or define problems that require creative solutions. A recent brainstorming exercise among four groups of four students in my own classroom yielded a total of 75 ideas for arts-based projects that used some form of cognitive combining in concept description. Examples included laundromat/bar, conga line/cancer, professors/break dancing. From the list of 75, students could then begin to assess which ideas met actual needs or wants or addressed real problems. The brainstorming exercise is timebound and operates under the following ground rules, adapted from Gryskiewicz & Taylor (2007): • Suspend judgment (all ideas are equally valid) • Encourage freewheeling (no idea is too wild) • Quantity (come with as many ideas as possible; weeding comes later) • Cross-fertilize (ideas feed off of other ideas) • Avoid killer phrases or words (e.g. “no,” “really?” “I don’t think so”) A brainstorming exercise such as this addresses not only Gardner’s “Creating Mind,” but also the “Synthesizing Mind” and “The Respectful Mind.” Respectful, nonjudgmental discourse is a prerequisite to effective brainstorming. Paulus & Nijstad (2003) assert that creativity in groups is most effective when group members share their diverse perspectives. Group work is, perhaps, one of only a few ways to develop the respectful mind for which Gardner advocates. To take the exercise further, into the realm of more practical entrepreneurship, and the development of Duening’s “Designing Mind” and “Risk-Managing Mind,” students can be asked to begin to design the organizational structure around the cognitive concepts and then assess the feasibility of the concept itself. To do this effectively, students need to dissect the impulses behind the initial brainstorming (“meta-cognition” and “managing impulsivity” in Costa & Kallick’s parlance) and then create/imagine/innovate the ways in which the cognitive combinations identified in brainstorming can be brought to fruition. While students willingly participate in brainstorming activities in the classroom, informal polling indicates that they prefer not to work on team projects outside of the classroom, for the most part due to the problem of free-riding and the logistical challenge of scheduling six or eight students. Further observations of the impact of digital tools such as group discussion boards can be made to assess if these teaching tools are an effective substitute for in-person brainstorming. Experiential learning For the purposes of this essay, experiential learning for the arts entrepreneurship educator _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         74     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   means providing opportunities for students to learn through the experience of launching and/or managing an arts-based venture. Within this context, students might be asked to develop an idea and put it before an audience or, to use more business-oriented language, put it out in the marketplace. Or, they may be asked to be entrepreneurial in their approach to managing a venture such as a student-run gallery, theatre company, or arts education program. In doing so, one can help the student develop Gardner’s “Ethical Mind,” the mind that understands the artist entrepreneur as a citizen of a community with “rights, obligations, and responsibilities” (p. 129). The respectful mind developed through collaborative project work is now exercised in the bright light of day, in the public. Cantor (1995) notes that experiential learning programs can bring students together with their communities and further that such linkages can lead to positive economic development outcomes. Gardner’s ethical mind seems most related to Duening’s entrepreneurial minds of resiliency and effectuation because these involve the relationship of the student to their larger community. To develop the resilient mind, Duening recommends a series of classroom interactions in which students share their experience of failure or interact with entrepreneurs who have failed. These exercises may teach students about resiliency, but they do not necessarily teach students to be resilient. Resiliency is a necessary prerequisite to several of Costa & Kallick habits of mind, including persisting, finding humor, and responding with wonderment and awe. Educators can help students develop resilience by providing them with real opportunities to fail. Failure is an excellent teacher. To cite just one example from an experiential learning curriculum, the student literary manager of a student-managed theatre company failed to secure the performance rights to a script. The production was officially cancelled, but the students, resilient and persistent, as well as passionately committed to the work, invited friends and instructors to a dress rehearsal. In doing so, they learned not only an operational lesson, but a behavioral one as well. They persevered and although unable to reap as much reward (both monetary and artistic) as they had hoped, through resilient and persistent action presented their work to an invited audience. Modeled after small business venture incubators, a university arts venture incubator provides an experiential learning opportunity in which students can launch – or attempt to launch -- an arts-based venture. In a university setting, the primary objective of the incubator may be primarily educational, in contrast to commercial small business incubators that measure their success via employment, launch percentage, or other economic development metrics.3 Return on                                                                                                                 3 A study of the evaluation metrics of university-based arts incubators is nearing completion at the time of this writing. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         75     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   investment, whether in financial or cultural capital, is secondary to the program’s educational objectives. The incubator provides seed money and mentorship and connects student arts entrepreneurs to business services. Students must secure matching funds to the incubator investment. This is perhaps the most direct means by which the incubator teaches persistence. The student must persist at securing support or they will “fail,” where failure is defined by the withdrawal of seed funding. A former student who launched an online music business through such an incubator program comments on what he learned through the eventual failure of his business, “Sometimes you have to go through those mistakes and learn how to make hard decisions even though, emotionally, you want to keep the business alive. I was able to tap into so many opportunities because I started this company,” (in Partridge, 2011). Conclusions and further thoughts Gardner’s cognitive approach to teaching future citizen leaders and Costa & Kallick’s behavioral one can be viewed as a multi-dimensional scaffold for the development of arts entrepreneurship pedagogy. Interactive pedagogies, in which students experience entrepreneurial behaviors and their results can be effective in developing the alert, visionary, resilient arts leaders of tomorrow. Yet, rigorous research is needed to determine the efficacy and impact of such pedagogies on entrepreneurial behaviors. References Baron, R.A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “Connect the Dots” to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, February, 2006 104-119. Cantor, J.A. (1995). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom and community. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports 24(7), 1-102. Duening, T. (2010). Five minds for the entrepreneurial future. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 19(1), 1-22. Essig, L. (2009). Suffusing entrepreneurship education throughout the theatre curriculum. Theatre Topics, 19(2), 117-124. Frank, P.M. (2008). A model of nonprofit and socially motivated entrepreneurial behavior. In G. Shockley, P. Frank & R.Stough (eds.) Non-market entrepreneurship: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 192-205). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Gardner, H. (2008). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Gryskiewicz, S. S. & Taylor, S. (2007). Making creativity practical: Innovation that gets results. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         76     Essig     Frameworks  for  Educating  the  Artist  of  the  Future   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Hong, C., Essig, L., & Bridgstock, R. (2011). The enterprising artist and the arts entrepreneur: Emergent pedagogies for new disciplinary habits of mind. In N. Chick, A. Haynie & R. Gurung (Eds.), Exploring more signature pedagogies (). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I.M. (1982). Uncertainty, discovery, and human action: A study of the entrepreneurial profile in the Misesian system. In I. Krizner (ed.) Method, process, and Austrian economics (pp. 139-160). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277– 282. Partridge, A.R. (2011). The business of art. Alumni Magazine, 15(1), 46-47. Paulus, P.B. & Nijstad, B.A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press. Sarasvathy, S.A. (2001). Causation and effectutation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263. Schumpeter, J.A. (1961/1911). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, 3e. New York: Harper & Brothers. Simonton, D.K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within generations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(6), 1273-1286. Smith, Michael V. 2005. Modern Mentoring: Ancient Lessons for Today. Music Educators Journal 91(11), 62-67. Acknowledgements The main ideas of this essay were developed for and presented at the annual conference of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), Milwaukee WI, 2011. A subsequent revision was presented at the Higher Education Creativity Conference in Chengdu, China, 2012. Boyd Branch illustrated the figures from a sketch by the author. Many thanks to Dr. Tamara Underiner for providing useful feedback on the final version of the paper and to Gary Beckman for his editorial acumen. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Artivate  1  (2)         77