**This is an old revision of the document!**
Disruptive Entrepreneurship
MDST 2011
Disruption has become a hallowed achievement in contemporary business culture, to the point that we forget it used to be a bad thing. What, exactly, do entrepreneurs, investors, and internet evangelists mean by the word? What have been the great disruptions of our time, and who wound up disrupted?
This course is a hands-on exploration of disruptive media cultures, intended for entrepreneurs, critics, and activists alike. We will encounter disruptions in the world around us and devise some of our own. Students should expect to enlarge their entrepreneurial repertoires, but also to experience fresh trepidation about entrepreneurship's possible effects.
Instructor
Nathan Schneider (“Nathan” or “Professor Schneider”)
nathan.schneider@colorado.edu
Armory 1B24, meetings by appointment via email (etiquette suggestions)
Website: nathanschneider.info
Objectives
- Gain familiarity with discourses surrounding media entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation
- Encounter the social impacts and enablers of economic disruptions
- Cultivate habits of ethical entrepreneurship in media economies
The business model
The course consists of six evaluated components; three are consecutive and three are ongoing.
Phase one: Report
20 points
Early in the course, each student produces a brief, researched report on a past disruption. Write an internal memo by an employee of an incumbent organization as it comes to terms with the disruption taking place. Explain it clearly to colleagues and suggest possible responses that the incumbent organization might take. The report should be between 1,200 and 1,500 words, formatted and written appropriately (and creatively) in the guise of an official document from the organization. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity
- Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive
- Evidence of self-directed research, including at least two peer-reviewed academic sources, using appropriate citation
- Meaningful engagement with at least two assigned materials from the course
Phase two: Presentation
20 points
The second project for the course is a presentation to the class about the effects of a disruptive innovation. Students should interview at least two people (outside the CU community) with direct experience of having their way of life or livelihood challenged by the disruption. In the presentation, students will share interviewees' insights, alongside an explanation of the nature of the disruption and its broader context. This assignment is conducted in pairs, who will present 10-to-12 minute presentations with slides. Each presentation should cover a unique topic. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity
- Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive
- Evidence of self-directed research, including at least two peer-reviewed academic sources, and appropriate citation
- Meaningful engagement with at least one assigned material from the course
Students may form groups of three as well; these will required to present three interviews and three peer-reviewed sources, rather than the otherwise required two.
Phase three: Whitepaper
20 points
At the conclusion of the course, students produce a whitepaper outlining an original proposal for a disruption involving networked digital media. In between 1,500 and 1,800 words, describe the nature of the disruption, its economic and technological context, and the means of its financing and growth. Be sure to also consider its potential social effects.
Students will twice present their ideas to the class as a two-minute pitch with one informative but parsimonious slide—first as a practice run for feedback and second as a peer-judged class contest.
Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- In-class pitches, including practice run and pitch contest
- Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity
- Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive
- Evidence of self-directed research, including at least two peer-reviewed academic sources, and appropriate citation, along with meaningful engagement with at least two assigned materials from the course
Class participation
15 points
All students should contribute to class discussions as active listeners, question-askers, commentators, and critics. Respectful disagreement with the instructor and fellow students is welcome and encouraged. Students will also pitch their own disruptive ideas to the class. Attendance will not be taken formally, but meaningful participation is not compatible with absence. Be prepared to discuss each week's assigned materials by the start of that week's first meeting.
Evaluation takes place at the midterm and the end of the course, with each evaluation period weighted equally. Evaluation is based on the following:
- Comments and questions that advance the conversation, with evidence of listening to others and engagement with assigned materials
- In-class pitch exercises assigned the meeting before
- Flash quizzes at random intervals
Online participation
15 points
Each week, students should engage with the assigned materials by using the Hypothesis annotation platform, where technically possible. Both quality and quantity will be taken into account. Annotations for each week's assigned materials are due by the start of that week's first meeting. Evaluation takes place at the midterm and the end of the course, with each evaluation period weighted equally.
It may not be necessary to read every assigned word with equal care. Expect to read effectively but strategically. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Volume of annotations and distribution throughout assigned materials; annotate every (annotatable) reading at least once and go deep on at least one of the readings each week
- Evidence of reflection and insight
- Engagement with fellow students' annotations
Entrepreneurial events
10 points
Part of the course is participation in two live events in CU's and Boulder's entrepreneurial community. Before the end of the day after each event, submit a discussion post in Canvas about your experience there. With this, include proof of participation (such as a photo of yourself there) or a documented, pre-approved excuse for non-attendance. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
- Compelling proof of attendance at:
- The Innovation & Entrepreneurship Fall Kickoff or the New Venture Challenge kickoff
- A second event, on or off campus, of your choosing
- Insightful, 300-500 word analysis of an aspect of each event
- Engagement with at least one of the assigned materials in each analysis
Entrepreneurship-related events can be found at the campus Innovation & Entrepreneurship Initiative website, Silicon Flatirons, Startup Digest, and Meetup.
Grading
Based on the stated point structure, grades will be awarded as follows: A (94-100), A- (90-93), B+ (87-89), B (83-86), B- (80-82), C+ (77-79), C (73-76), C- (70-72), D+ (67-69), D (63-66), D- (60-62), F (0-59). The minimum passing grade is 60 for undergraduates and 70 for graduate students.
Terms and conditions
Together, we agree to:
- Work together to foster a respectful, mature, convivial community based on discussion, accommodation, and attention
- Adhere to all university policies regarding academic integrity, accessibility, behavior, discrimination, misconduct, and religious observances; we take responsibility for understanding them and the relevant procedures
- Respect student privacy, keeping any materials or statements shared in class confidential unless permission is granted to do otherwise
- Refrain from the use of screen devices during class, except upon agreement with the instructor or for reasons of accessibility
If you find yourself in a position where lack of access to food, housing, health care, or other basic necessities interferes with your studies, consider seeking support from the Dean of Students and, if you feel comfortable doing so, your instructor. We will work to assist you however we can.
Fall 2019 calendar
Due dates are at 2 p.m.:
- Select Phase One project topic (shared document): 9/10
- Phase One project (Canvas dropbox): 10/1
- Select Phase Two project topic and date (shared document): 9/24
- Midterm participation evaluations: 10/22
- Phase Two project (Canvas dropbox): Various presentation dates, 10/8-11/7
- Phase Three pitch practice: 12/3
- Phase Three pitch contest: 12/12
- Phase Three whitepaper (Canvas dropbox): 12/14
Entrepreneurial events:
- Innovation & Entrepreneurship Fall Kickoff: September 20
- New Venture Challenge kickoff: TBA
Topics
The course topics, like the assignments, proceed in three phases. First, we acquaint ourselves with some processes and ideologies associated with Silicon Valley-style entrepreneurial culture and discourses of disruption. Second, we consider the human impacts of disruptive change. Third, we step back and explore some broader social, philosophical, and political consequences of disruptive thinking.
Phase one: Disruption
The universal calling (9/3)
- In Michelle Ferrier and Elizabeth Mays (eds.), Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Rebus Community, 2017–2019): “Developing the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” “Pitching Ideas”
- Brad Feld, chapters 1-3 in Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City (Wiley, 2012)
- Sarabeth Berk, Ali LeBeau Greenstein, Nicholas Karas, and Allison Moran, “Future-casting CU Boulder as the First Public University that Hacks the Academy,” CU Boulder Academic Futures whitepaper (December 2017)
Theory and cliché (9/10)
- Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Harvard Business Review (January-February 1995)
- Mark W. Johnson, Clayton M. Christensen, and Henning Kagermann, “Reinventing Your Business Model,” Harvard Business Review (December 2008)
- Jill Lepore, “The Disruption Machine,” New Yorker (June 23, 2014)
- Drake Bennett, “Clayton Christensen Responds to New Yorker Takedown of 'Disruptive Innovation',” Bloomberg (June 21, 2014)
Organizational vessels (9/17)
- Jessica Livingston, “Grow the Puzzle Around You,” Posthaven (June 30, 2018)
- Steve Blank, “Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything,” Harvard Business Review (May 2013)
- Luis Perez-Breva, “'The Lean Startup' Is an Unproductive Legend,” Quartz (August 6, 2018)
- In Michelle Ferrier and Elizabeth Mays (eds.), Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Rebus Community, 2017–2019): “Nonprofit Model Development”
Raising rounds (9/24)
- Kim-Mai Cutler, “The Unicorn Hunters,” Logic no. 4 (2018)
- Brad Bernthal, “The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Finance: A New Typology,” BYU Law Review (2018)
- Jennifer Brandel, Mara Zepeda, Astrid Scholz, and Aniyia Williams, “Zebras Fix What Unicorns Break” (March 8, 2017)
Origin stories (10/1)
- Silvia Federici, “All the World Needs a Jolt,” in Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Autonomedia, 2014)
- Venkatesh Rao, “A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100,” Ribbonfarm (June 8, 2011)
- John E. Elliott, “Marx and Schumpeter on Capitalism's Creative Destruction: A Comparative Restatement,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 95, no. 1 (August 1980)
Phase two: Disrupted
The core assignment for this phase will be a close reading of an important recent book, Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (PublicAffairs, 2019), along with supplemental readings.
"Home or Exile in the Digital Future" (10/8)
- Zuboff, Introduction
- Rebecca Solnit, “Diary: Google Invades,” London Review of Books 35, no. 3 (February 7, 2013)
"The Foundations of Surveillance Capitalism" (10/15)
- Zuboff, Part I
- Tim Wu, “The Battle for Our Attention,” audio lecture at Shorenstein Center, Harvard University (October 25, 2016)
"The Advance of Surveillance Capitalism" (10/22)
- Zuboff, Part II
- Cathy Hannabach, “Simone Browne on Resisting Surveillance & Creative Collaborations,” Imagine Otherwise (May 4, 2016)
10/24: Panel on “Economic Development for Creative District Leaders from Urban and Rural Colorado,” UMC Aspen Rooms (2-3 p.m.)
"Instrumentarian Power for a Third Modernity" (10/29)
- Zuboff, Part III
- Virginia Eubanks, “The Digital Poorhouse,” Harper's (January 2018)
"A Coup from Above" (11/5)
- Zuboff, Conclusion
- Lina Khan, “Amazon's Antitrust Paradox,” Yale Law Journal 126, no. 3 (2017)
Phase three: Disruptionism
Natural and unnatural (11/12)
- H. Allen Orr, “The Descent of Gould,” New Yorker (September 30, 2002)
- From Rebecca Solnit, A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster (Viking, 2009): “Prelude: Falling Together” (online at LitHub)
- Naomi Klein, “How Power Profits from Disaster,” The Guardian (July 6, 2017)
- Andrew Russell and Lee Vinsel, “Hail the Maintainers” Aeon (April 7, 2016)
Work and post-work (11/19)
- Rose Schneiderman, “We Have Found You Wanting,” The Survey (April 8, 1911)
- Jessica Bruder, “Driven to Despair,” New York Magazine (May 14, 2018)
- Miriam Cherry, “Beyond Misclassification: The Digital Transformation of Work,” Comparative Labor, Law, and Policy Journal 37 (2015-2016)
- Andrew Yang and Derek Thompson, “Running for President on a Universal Basic Income Platform,” AtlanticLive (November 5, 2018)
Decentralize everything (12/3)
- Manoush Zomorodi and Jen Poyant, “Blockchain. Block What?!,” ZigZag (June 13, 2018)
- Nick Paumgarten, “The Prophets of Cryptocurrency Survey the Boom and Bust,” New Yorker (October 15, 2018)
- Libra Association, Libra White Paper (2019)
The new citizen (12/10)
- “Shenzhen: The Silicon Valley of Hardware,” Wired 2016
- Nathan Heller, “Estonia, the Digital Republic,” New Yorker (December 18–25, 2017)
- Zeynep Tufekci, “How Social Media Took Us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump,” MIT Technology Review (August 14, 2018)