Disruptive Entrepreneurship

MDST 2011

Disruption has become a hallowed achievement in contemporary business culture. 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 disruption as a practice and a theory, which goes to the heart of contemporary society. 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 disruption's possible consequences.

Dr. Nathan Schneider (“Professor Schneider”)
nathan.schneider@colorado.edu (email etiquette)
Armory Building, 1B24
Office hours: Wednesday at 3-5 p.m., or by appointment
Website: nathanschneider.info

• Gain familiarity with discourses surrounding media entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation
• Encounter the social impacts of economic disruptions
• Cultivate habits of critical entrepreneurship in media economies

The course consists of six evaluated components; three are consecutive “phases” and three are ongoing.

20 percent

Early in the course, each student produces a video report on a past disruption based on original research. Perform the role of an employee of an incumbent organization as it comes to terms with a potentially threatening disruption taking place. (Examples of incumbent organizations include large corporations, government agencies, and cultural institutions.) Explain the disruption clearly to colleagues and suggest possible responses that their organization might take, including both narrative and market data.

The report should be between five and seven minutes, presented appropriately (and creatively) in the guise of an internal statement from the organization. It should include slides that cite all relevant sources. Turn in both the video (as a Zoom link using your campus account) and the slides (in PDF format). 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, based on meaningful engagement with at least two assigned sources from the course
• Evidence of self-directed research with at least eight sources beyond assigned materials, including at least two peer-reviewed scholarly sources and relevant market data, cited in APA style
• Clear and compelling one-minute, in-class summary with an elegant slide, summarizing the report in character

20 percent

The second project for the course is a ten-minute group presentation to the class about the human impacts of a disruptive innovation. Each student should interview at least one person (outside the CU community) whose way of life or livelihood has been threatened by the disruption. In the presentation, students will share interviewees' insights, alongside an explanation of the nature of the disruption and its broader context. Each presentation should cover a unique topic.

Before the presentation takes place, one student in the group should turn in the slide deck that identifies all contributors. Evaluation criteria are as follows:

• Completion of the assignment with clarity, stylistic correctness, and creativity
• Insightful interviews in disrupted communities by each student (duly credited), along with contextual data on social impacts
• Comprehension of the disruption and explanation of what qualifies it as disruptive, based on meaningful engagement with at least two assigned sources from the course
• Evidence of self-directed research with at least 10 sources beyond assigned materials, including at least two peer-reviewed scholarly sources and relevant market data, cited in APA style

25 percent

At the conclusion of the course, students produce a whitepaper outlining an original proposal for a disruption involving networked digital media. It can advance business, social, or policy goals. 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. The proposal should demonstrate expertise in the relevant markets and differentiation from existing offerings. Be sure to also consider its potential social effects.

Students will twice present their ideas to the class—first as a one-minute practice run for feedback and, second, as a one-minute pitch with one parsimonious slide.

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 in the context of the relevant market
• Meaningful engagement with at least two assigned sources from the course
• Evidence of self-directed research with at least 10 sources beyond assigned materials, including at least two peer-reviewed scholarly sources and relevant market data, cited in APA style
• Clear, compelling in-class pitch with an elegant slide

15 percent

As a warm-up at the start of many class sessions, there will be quizzes based on readings and lectures on using Canvas. Students may consult course materials while completing them.

Quizzes are meant to be taken individually and in class; unapproved deviations will be regarded as a violation of the campus Honor Code. If you cannot attend class, you must inform the instructor ahead of time to arrange a make-up.

10 percent

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. 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:

• Contributing comments and questions that advance the conversation
• Evidence of listening to others
• Engagement with assigned materials

10 percent

Part of the course is participation in two live, in-person events in the Boulder entrepreneurial community—at least one on campus. Within 24 hours 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 of you and your screen). Evaluation criteria are as follows:

• Compelling proof of attendance at the event
• Insightful, 300-500 word reflection on 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, and Meetup.

Grading will follow the expectations stated in this syllabus.

If you need an extension on any assignment, consult your instructor ahead of time. Late projects will be penalized 5 percentage points per day.

Plagiarism and similar lapses in academic honesty can result in no credit for the assignment and referral to campus authorities.

Based on the stated percentage 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.

Together, we agree to:

• Work together to foster a respectful, mature, convivial community based on mutual learning, diverse perspectives, and accommodation
• Respect student privacy, keeping any materials or statements shared in class confidential unless permission is granted to do otherwise
• Be present in our interactions together; students should put away screen devices during lectures and class discussions
• Adhere to all university policies regarding academic integrity, accessibility, behavior, discrimination, misconduct, inclusivity, and religious observances; we take responsibility for understanding them and the relevant procedures

AI policy: Since this is a skills-building and knowledge-integrating course, generative AI should not be the primary means of producing anything turned in as original work.

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 explore a variety of strategies and shortcomings of disruptive and entrepreneurial thinking.

Except for the book we read in Phase Two, all readings should be available online. Some readings require using the university network (either on campus or via VPN).

What does this overused word even mean?

• Brad Feld, chapters 1-3 in Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City (Wiley, 2012)
• Xiaowei R. Wang, “Letter from Shenzhen,” Logic(s) (April 1, 2018)

• Clayton M. Christensen, Michael E. Raynor, and Rory McDonald, “What Is Disruptive Innovation?,” Harvard Business Review (December 1, 2015)
• 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)

• Venkatesh Rao, “A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100,” Ribbonfarm (June 8, 2011)
• Jessica Livingston, “Grow the Puzzle Around You,” Posthaven (June 30, 2018)

• Kim-Mai Cutler, “The Unicorn Hunters,” Logic(s) no. 4 (2018)
• Paul Graham, “Startup = Growth” (September 2012)
• Daisy Onubogu, “Underrepresented Founders are Merely Collateral Damage” (February 25, 2021)

• Peter Thiel with Blake Masters, Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future, chapters 4-5 (Crown Currency, 2014)
• Cory Doctorow, “‘Enshittification’ Is Coming for Absolutely Everything,” Financial Times (February 7, 2024)
• Matt Seybold, “The Secret History of Canvas LMS, Corporate Raiders, & The Chatbot Bubble,” The American Vandal (March 24, 2026)

• Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, preamble and chapter 1, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
• Joseph A. Schumpeter, “The Creative Response in Economic History,” Journal of Economic History 7, no. 2 (November 1947)

Phase two centers around how one company, OpenAI, has helped create the AI disruption, through the lens of one book, available in the bookstore:

• Karen Hao, Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI (Penguin, 2025)

• Hao, Empire of AI, Prologue and Part I

• Hao, Empire of AI, Parts II and III

• Hao, Empire of AI, Part IV

What, then, can we do?

• Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, “The Californian Ideology,” Science as Culture 6, no. 1 (1996)
• Jennifer Brandel, Mara Zepeda, Astrid Scholz, and Aniyia Williams, “Zebras Fix What Unicorns Break” (March 8, 2017)
• Paul Engler, “What Social Movements Can Learn from the ‘Innovator’s Dilemma’,” Waging Nonviolence (November 12, 2025)

• Ben Tarnoff, The Making of the Tech Worker Movement (Logic(s), 2020)
• Anisia Uzeyman and Saul Williams (dirs.), Neptune Frost (2021)

• Maria Mazzucato, “The Entrepreneurial State,” Soundings 49 (Winter 2011)
• Andrea Pollio, “Silicon States of Development,” in Silicon Elsewhere: Nairobi, Global China, and the Promise of Techno-Capital (University of California Press, 2026)

• Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism,” in Schopf, T.J.M. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology (Freeman Cooper, 1972)
• Walidah Imarisha, “All Organizing Is Science Fiction,” History Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst (November 13, 2018)

• David Edgerton, “Introduction” and “Maintenance” in The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900 (Profile Books, 2008)
• Nathan Schneider, “Innovation Amnesia: Technology as a Substitute for Politics,” First Monday 29, no. 11 (2024)
• Stefano Harney and Fred Moten, “Fantasy in the Hold” (pp. 84-99), The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study (Minor Compositions, 2013)