**4. Results and indicators of success**

**3. The process behind the contagion model**

dilemmas faced in the workplace.

180 Global Voices in Higher Education

at no monetary cost to instructors.

We began the process of developing the contagion model after researching potential gaps in existing BE&E curricula. After surveying 170 BE&E course syllabi culled from colleges and universities throughout the United States, we found that new offerings in these subjects had taken on a variety of forms, transitioning from appendages of more established disciplines into discrete, stand‐alone courses. Entrepreneurship courses often considered only new venture startup, without broader discussion of what it meant to be entrepreneurial or the benefits of entrepreneurship to society. Different AACSB‐accredited schools offered courses under the business ethics banner that contained completely disparate content [15]. Some business ethics courses emphasized a foundation in classical philosophy, whereas others focused exclusively on a legal‐positivistic approach, stressing adherence to established codes and policies. While we have always viewed educational flexibility and license in a positive light, our concern was that such disparity might leave business students ill‐equipped to navigate an array of moral

We designed the innovation workshops to utilize the dispersed knowledge of participants, and to task those participants with drafting modules that would address these and other shortcomings in existing courses, consolidating, to a degree, BE&E curricula being offered throughout the country. Our goal was to initiate a process of collaboration and refinement that would culminate in usable, standards‐ready materials that could be shared and adopted

When recruiting attendees for the innovation workshops, we sought participants with little or no connection to one another. Our academic network and social media presence helped us identify individuals within business schools, philosophy departments, and K‐12 institutions who would all, we hoped, make significant contributions in developing new course materials. Although participants' notoriety and roles varied, each demonstrated a shared desire to effect a positive change in the current orientation of ethics and entrepreneurship courses. Appendix 1

Prior to the innovation workshops, we asked participants to submit readings that could provide a baseline for subject matter competence, and would facilitate conversation among participants on common difficulties in teaching BE&E. After compiling and distributing the readings, we asked that participants read all materials before coming to the workshops.

At the beginning of each day during the workshops we used design‐thinking activities to encourage new ways of thinking about BB&E, and to overcome barriers to participation. Round‐table discussions at the conferences helped instructors and administrators establish the current state of the courses, and navigate pedagogical and institutional obstacles they face

We encouraged ownership of developed materials by asking workshop participants to con‐ tribute activities and lesson plans from their own experience. As they did, we constructed prototypes. These prototype lesson plans were then posted online for educators to use freely, revise, and distribute to their colleagues. The website continues to provide a virtual medium

includes an infographic illustration of the logic of the contagion model.

when trying to innovate in their classrooms or utilize a new curriculum.

We worked with a total of 18 K‐12 and 21 higher education participants at our first two disruptive innovation workshops. Through these events, we established pilot programs at 13 separate institutions and built partnerships with seven organizations. Participants produced five general lesson ideas/activities, from which we have built 10 modules and 60 grade‐specific K‐12 lesson plans.

Many of the participants attending the conference had little experience with design activities and lacked the requisite vocabulary for understanding and producing novel curricular com‐ ponents. The discomfort was especially pronounced for K‐12 educators. One K‐12 teacher said "there was a bit of disconnect between the university professors and the 'ground truth' of K‐12 educators." Another K‐12 teacher expressed concern that "the majority of the conversations seemed about philosophy rather than pedagogy," making it difficult to participate. While pro‐ fessors thrived in the open‐ended, early curricular discussions, several K‐12 educators wanted more definitive pedagogical items to discuss.

### **4.1. Post‐workshop activities**

Shortly after this first set of curriculum design workshops, we compiled the contributions of participants into a pilot pack for teaching Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship. Given the wide array of disciplines represented among instructors helping us develop a new BE&E curriculum, the pilot pack we produced was a raw framework into which instructors could incorporate existing materials, lesson plans, learning objectives, activities, and assessments. Instructors who happened to be teaching entrepreneurship or business ethics directly could adopt the materials entirely as written. This flexibility, which was one of the primary requests of workshop participants, has broadened the audience the workshop's materials could reach.

In the first round of pilots, we distributed the pilot pack to instructors in nine states: Louisiana, Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, California, New Jersey, Arizona, Maryland, and North Carolina. Each teacher was asked to administer pre and post surveys that assessed students' overall knowledge in Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and how students' perspectives of busi‐ ness ethics changed as a result of the course. The surveys also solicited feedback from instruc‐ tors regarding the quality of the materials and the likelihood that they would adopt the virtue framework in future courses and share resources with colleagues.

Contemporaneous with our pilot courses, we initiated a content review using eight pro‐ fessors with content expertise and experience developing resources in Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship. Reviewers received a stipend to evaluate materials line by line and address any lingering pedagogical or curricular issues. A few reviewers expressed concern over the ambiguity of specific virtues within the virtue framework of the curriculum, notic‐ ing an incompatibility among certain virtues and their associated activities. Other reviewers suggested new readings, alternate activities, and changes to the language of the pilot pack.

We used this feedback to make alterations to the existing pilot pack, specifically the virtue framework, and tailor another round of conferences to refine the curriculum further. The second set of conferences engaged over 40 educational professionals to identify how we could address shortcomings within the initial pilot pack, and how we could accelerate distribution and adoption of the new materials. In addition to the pilot pack, a few short readings were distributed prior to the conferences to prime discussion and set the tone. Similar to the first set of conferences, we started each day with design activities intended to encourage conversation among participants and spark ideas. Unlike the first set of conferences, the second set focused exclusively on refining a set of ideas and curricular elements rather than creating an entirely new curriculum.

One of the participants at the conference suggested a partnership with his organization to enhance our distribution among K‐12 teachers in the Western United States. Shortly thereaf‐ ter, we partnered with his California‐based entrepreneurship center that has been developing curricular materials in the K‐12 space for over 20 years. Together we added more concrete layers to our pilot pack framework, which included richer content and activities, standards alignment for Texas and California, differentiation suggestions for students with special needs, uniform design, videos, and training materials for adopters. These materials were then built into our web portal for instructors to review, download, and distribute freely.

## **5. Conclusions and potential applications**

Citing economist Kenneth Arrow, Sorenson and colleagues described how "[t]he generation of new knowledge often requires substantial investment in research and development, but the repeated application of this knowledge, once produced, entails little if any incremental cost" [11]. Our goal in developing the collaborative contagion model was to create a framework through which instructors could prototype, refine, and distribute BE&E course materials at no monetary cost. We expect the dispersed knowledge, expertise, and professional networks of professors to yield materials suited to a variety of situational demands. Ongoing refine‐ ment of modules among participants should produce multiple prototypes of lesson plans from which instructors can choose and adapt. Instructors also have a number of incentives to participate: better lesson plans, professional development hours, network building, and pro‐ gram development ideas. Inviting educators from different regions helps avoid knowledge sharing limitations across geographic boundaries, limits silo‐ing of content, ensures essential coverage of foundational principles, and encourages wider curricular adoption.
