Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 3

HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION, VOLUME 3 Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volu...

Author: Alain Fayolle

97 downloads 3164 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION, VOLUME 3

Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 3 International Perspectives

Edited by

Alain Fayolle Professor of Entrepreneurship, EMLYON Business School, France and Visiting Professor, Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Belgium

Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Alain Fayolle 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2009941424

ISBN 978 1 84844 096 8

02

Printed and bound by MPG Books Group, UK

Contents List of contributors Foreword by Hans Landström

vii ix

1 Insights from an international perspective on entrepreneurship education Alain Fayolle PART I

HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM METHODS?

2 Using simulation to develop empathy and motivate agency: an innovative pedagogical approach for social entrepreneurship education Brett R. Smith, Jill Kickul and Linda Coley 3 The creative industries and entrepreneurship education: the potential contribution of student-oriented case studies Barra Ó Cinnéide 4 Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise: entrepreneurs in education Per Blenker and Poul Rind Christensen 5 Assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education and training Thomas Lans and Judith Gulikers PART II

13

25 43

54

HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM DIFFERENCES?

6 Accounting for student/educator diversity: resurrecting coaction theory Colin Jones 7 Small business education in a grande nation: antinomy, opportunity or both? A French grande école case study Jacqueline Fendt and Sylvain Bureau 8 Stakeholder participation in, and impact upon, entrepreneurship education in the UK Harry Matlay 9 Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment: a multicultural perspective Catherine Coron PART III

1

71

86

110

122

HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM MINORITIES?

10 Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender Teresa Nelson and Susan Duffy 11 Entrepreneurship education and ethnic minorities: the case of North African entrepreneurs in France Hadj Nekka and Alain Fayolle v

153

166

vi

Contents

12 Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs: a call for a new research agenda for entrepreneurship education Philippe Silberzahn and Pierre Silberzahn 13 What entrepreneurial competencies should be emphasized in entrepreneurship and innovation education at the undergraduate level? Edgar Izquierdo and Dirk Deschoolmeester PART IV

194

HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE?

14 International entrepreneurship from emerging economies to developed economies: a novel theory for entrepreneurship education in China HongLing Jiang and Dong Bian 15 Entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland: context, opportunities and challenges Thomas Garavan, Naomi Birdthistle, Barra Ó Cinnéide and Chris Collet 16 Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries: empirical findings and proposals for the design of university-wide concepts Norbert Kailer 17 The role of an entrepreneurial learning team in creating an enterprise culture in a university David Rae, Simon Gee and Robert Moon 18 Corporate entrepreneurship training: a routine inquiry Janice Byrne Index

183

209

225

248

274 297

313

Contributors Dong Bian, EMLYON Business School, France Naomi Birdthistle, University of Limerick, Republic of Ireland Per Blenker, University of Aarhus and Programme Director, IMEET (International Master in Entrepreneurship Education and Training), Denmark Sylvain Bureau, ESCP Europe and Ecole Polytechnique CRG CNRS, Paris, France Janice Byrne, EMLYON Business School, France Poul Rind Christensen, University of Southern Denmark and Kolding School of Design, Denmark Linda Coley, Miami University, USA Chris Collet, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Catherine Coron, Panthéon-Assas Paris 2 University, France Dirk Deschoolmeester, Ghent University, Belgium Susan Duffy, Simmons School of Management, USA Alain Fayolle, EMLYON Business School, France Jacqueline Fendt, ESCP Europe and Ecole Polytechnique CRG CNRS, Paris, France Thomas Garavan, University of Limerick, Republic of Ireland Simon Gee, University of Derby, UK Judith Gulikers, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Edgar Izquierdo, ESPAE Graduate School of Management, Ecuador HongLing Jiang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China Colin Jones, Australian Innovation Research Centre, Australia Norbert Kailer, Johannes Kepler University, Austria Jill Kickul, New York University, USA Thomas Lans, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Harry Matlay, Birmingham City University, UK Robert Moon, University of Derby, UK Hadj Nekka, University of Angers, France vii

viii

Contributors

Teresa Nelson, Simmons School of Management, USA and Euromed Management, France Barra Ó Cinnéide, University of Limerick, Republic of Ireland David Rae, University of Lincoln, UK Brett R. Smith, Miami University, USA Philippe Silberzahn, EMLYON Business School and Ecole Polytechnique (CRG), France Pierre Silberzahn, University of Caen, France, and artist and photographer

Foreword Entrepreneurship is about ‘heterogeneity’ – entrepreneurs start their ventures from all kinds of backgrounds, with a variety of business ideas, and their way of starting a venture varies considerably. This fact was emphasized by William Gartner in his thesis ‘An empirical model of the business start-up, and eight entrepreneurial archetypes’ (1982) and not least in his well cited article in the Academy of Management Review in 1985, in which he provided a framework for understanding the variation in entrepreneurship – in entrepreneurs, their activities, the kind of organizations they start, and the contexts in which the activities take place – a framework that can be seen as a kaleidoscope for viewing the varying patterns of entrepreneurship. Following this line of argumentation we can say that context matters! The institutional conditions for entrepreneurship differ significantly between countries (Lundström and Stevenson, 2005). The attitudes towards entrepreneurship, risks and failures and the economic environment differ (for example, the growth of the economy, legislation, taxes, administrative burdens for entrepreneurs) and there are variations between countries with regard to support for entrepreneurs and new ventures – all of which are factors that affect the possibility to start new ventures in a society, and make the behaviour needed to start a business quite different in one country compared to another. As a consequence, the rate of entrepreneurial activities and the characteristics of the businesses started vary significantly in different contexts (Bosma et al., 2008). There is also great heterogeneity in terms of the companies started by entrepreneurs. The majority of ventures can be considered imitative – we tend to start businesses that are essentially similar to other businesses, for example, we start restaurants that are similar to other restaurants or boutiques that are similar to other such outlets, and so on. Of course there are reasons for this kind of imitative behaviour in entrepreneurship – not least the fact that it is a way to reduce the uncertainty inherent in new ventures. Despite this tendency to start imitative ventures, there are always entrepreneurs who break the pattern and create more innovative ventures – ventures that might result in new industries. Starting innovative ventures is something quite different to starting imitative ventures (Aldrich, 1999), for example, the entrepreneur must acquire new skills and routines that do not already exist and convince others to believe in the new idea and venture. In addition, we can start ventures, irrespective of whether they are imitative or innovative, in many different ways (Reynolds and Miller, 1992). It may even be that the first sale to a customer occurs before the entrepreneur begins thinking about starting a business. Furthermore, the duration of the start-up process varies greatly from a couple of weeks to several years. There is no one best way of starting a new venture – it is a complex process that involves creativity and experimentation as well as planning and systematic work. Finally, individuals differ! Each year millions of people around the world start their own venture, and it would be somewhat surprising if we could find similar characteristics and motivation among them. In general, there has long been a notion that either ‘you are an entrepreneur or not’, and it has been popular to assign particular traits and motives to ix

x

Foreword

the entrepreneur (Brockhaus, 1982), but today we know that such variables only explain a few per cent of the variance (Davidsson, 2008). In addition, we have to bear in mind that entrepreneurship is not mainly an individual achievement but a social phenomenon – more and more ventures are started by a team of entrepreneurs – a fact that makes the prerequisites for and the process of starting a new venture quite different from starting an individual venture, for example, regarding the resources available, but also the possibility of conflicts within the team and negative dynamics in the venture. The conclusion that we can draw is that there is more variation than similarities in entrepreneurship – entrepreneurship is a highly heterogeneous phenomenon – and this heterogeneity needs to be taken into account in our entrepreneurial education. In this third volume of the Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Alain Fayolle treats the issue of heterogeneity in entrepreneurship in a very meritorious manner by taking an international approach to entrepreneurship education, and in this way we can learn from the diversity of teaching experiences around the world. As Fayolle argues in his introduction (p. 2) ‘There is no magic method, only methods which are more or less well adopted to a set of factors such as the pedagogical objectives, the characteristics of the audience, the institutional, cultural and organizational constraints’, thus there is no best pedagogical approach or method in entrepreneurship education. In the first part of the book we learn about different pedagogical approaches in entrepreneurship teaching, such as simulation methods, case studies and the use of practical expertise possessed by entrepreneurs. The second part of the book includes a couple of chapters that focus on differences in terms of making use of the richness of student diversity in the teaching situations, but also with regard to differences in entrepreneurship teaching between countries and cultures. The third part elaborates on entrepreneurship education for particular audiences such as women entrepreneurs, ethnic minority entrepreneurs, artists and scientists, and undergraduate students. Finally, in the fourth part of the book, the heterogeneity in entrepreneurship is taken into consideration by a discussion of entrepreneurship education in different institutional cultures, for example, in the university context and private corporations. The richness of the book provides great opportunities for the reader’s own learning. By taking the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship seriously, the reader can learn from the different pedagogical approaches and entrepreneurship educations presented and reflected upon in the book. I wish the reader an enjoyable and profitable reading experience. Hans Landström Lund University, Sweden References Aldrich, H.E. (1999), Organizations Evolving, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bosma, N., Z.J. Acs, E. Autio, A. Coduras and J. Levie (2008), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2008 Executive Report, Babson Park, MA: Babson College. Brockhaus, R. (1982), ‘The psychology of the entrepreneur’, in C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton and K.H. Vesper (eds), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 39–57. Davidsson, P. (2008), ‘Looking back at 20 years of entrepreneurship research: what did we learn?’, in H. Landström, H. Crijns, E. Laveren and D. Smallbone (eds), Entrepreneurship, Sustainable Growth and Performance, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 13–26. Gartner, W.B. (1982), ‘An empirical model of the business start-up, and eight entrepreneurial archetypes’, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.

Foreword

xi

Gartner, W.B. (1985), ‘A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation’, Academy of Management Review, 10, 696–706. Lundström, A. and L. Stevenson (2005), Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice, New York: Springer. Reynolds, P. and B. Miller (1992), ‘New firm gestation: conception, birth and implication for research’, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 405–17.

1

Insights from an international perspective on entrepreneurship education Alain Fayolle

This third volume of the Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education follows the first two books which have been respectively articulated around a general perspective (Fayolle, 2007a) and a contextual perspective (Fayolle, 2007b). In these books we had selected chapters studying current changes in entrepreneurship education at the paradigmatic, methodological and theoretical levels and others showing the importance of cultural, institutional, national and political contexts. The third Handbook volume takes an international perspective. It means that not only do we recognize the contextual dimension of entrepreneurship education and training but we also believe as researchers and educators that we can learn from international practice diversity (Potter, 2008). Entrepreneurship can be an important source of value creation and we believe that social justice can be achieved through its application. Entrepreneurship is also highly contextual. The process of how, by whom, and with what consequences business opportunities based on future products and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited is shaped by the level of development of the economy and the cultural context in which it occurs (Potter, 2008). For example, we know that entrepreneurship in developing and transition countries is qualitatively different from entrepreneurship in developed countries. Three different economic and cultural contexts that shape entrepreneurship can be observed: (1) the liberal system, in which the market mechanism is the best way to shape and maintain economic and social justice (that is, the US economy); (2) the cooperative system, in which the state plays an important role in redistributing wealth while the market is a priori not effective enough to do so (France is a case in point); (3) the informal system, in which neither the state or the regulated market can create wealth and social justice. Wealth and justice is created locally and based on affiliation to social groups (for example, many African countries). The three contexts we have briefly described above are likely to shape entrepreneurship differently. Therefore, entrepreneurship cannot be understood as a one-dimensional concept. It is a concept based on the acts of many that adds to large macroeconomic effects. These different visions of the world and how entrepreneurship can function as a positive force have an impact on the way entrepreneurship can be taught and people can be educated in the field of entrepreneurship. Our conviction is that research in entrepreneurship education should focus more on this perspective. For this third volume of the Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education we have assembled 17 empirical and conceptual research chapters which address issues and questions in relation to education and training in these different economic and cultural contexts, paying attention to how each particular context shapes entrepreneurship education. We have also tried to emphasize how we can learn and improve our own practices from each of these international views. To achieve this objective, we have structured the 1

2

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education

book into four parts. Each part addresses a key entrepreneurship education learning issue in relation to methods, differences, minorities and institutional cultures. We present below the four parts of the book and the 17 chapters which have been included. I How can we learn from methods? We know the importance of methods in entrepreneurship education (Carrier, 2007; Fayolle, 2008; Harrison and Leitch, 2008; Smith et al., 2008), but sometimes educators and teachers are implicitly or explicitly talking about (or looking for) the magic method which turns each and every individual into a successful entrepreneur. There is no magic method, only methods which are more or less well adapted to a set of factors such as the pedagogical objectives, the characteristics of the audiences, the institutional, cultural and organizational constraints (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). By ‘methods’ here we mean both pedagogical approaches such as simulation, case studies and entrepreneurs in the classroom, and conceptual approaches to evaluating a key entrepreneurship dimension (entrepreneurial competence in our case). We have four chapters in the first part of the book, the three former are centered on particular pedagogical approaches while the later focuses on assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education. Chapter 2, ‘Using simulation to develop empathy and motivate agency: an innovative pedagogical approach for social entrepreneurship education’, is the result of research from Brett R. Smith, Jill Kickul and Linda Coley. In this chapter, one of the departure points is that both scholars and practitioners agree one of most important foundational skills for a social entrepreneur is empathy. Consequently, the authors examine how the pedagogical use of a simulation may contribute to the development of empathy and social entrepreneurship education. Qualitative findings suggest the use of a simulation may be a useful tool for inclusion in social entrepreneurship pedagogy and may offer students the opportunity to engage in experiential learning of key theoretical constructs. While the field of social entrepreneurship continues to grow,1 a lot of issues and challenges remain concerning the education and training of social entrepreneurs, who pursue qualitatively different forms of opportunities compared to ‘traditional’ entrepreneurs. Barra Ó Cinnéide is the author of the Chapter 3, ‘The creative industries and entrepreneurship education: the potential contribution of student-oriented case studies’. The main objective of this chapter is to illustrate the value and the impact of the case method in entrepreneurship education and training. The particular reference taken for this work is the creative industries, an economic sector which encompasses many different segments and niches. The chapter highlights the potential this sector represents for developing attractive, new style, case material, with all the cultural and personality influences that come into play with creative industries. The author describes her experience on the creation and use of a series of creative industries case studies in examination sessions and the classroom. She draws conclusions from primary research undertaken with nine cohorts, in relation to the effectiveness of the case assessment process in end-of-term examinations. As practical implications, the author suggests that educators and trainers should undertake more classroom research on the particular roles that case studies can play within their pedagogical processes. She also encourages further educationoriented research in the creative industries as this sector has many, untapped, research opportunities to illustrate exciting examples of entrepreneurship and innovation.

Insights from an international perspective

3

Chapter 4, ‘Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise: entrepreneurs in education’ is proposed by Per Blenker and Poul Rind Christensen. We regularly hear about the practical expertise possessed by entrepreneurs and the usefulness and the richness of their insights in the context of education and training. Therefore, the inclusions of entrepreneurs as teachers in entrepreneurship education is widely recommended and expanding. In this chapter, the authors discuss and reveal the experience-based expertise brought by entrepreneurs in light of the different purposes and different ways entrepreneurs can be included in teaching programs. This research is a first step and offers a preliminary framework to answer the key question: How can we maximize the implication and the pedagogical contribution of different types of entrepreneurs in different types of educational settings? Thomas Lans and Judith Gulikers are the authors of Chapter 5, ‘Assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education and training’. Based on an education science point of view, the authors suggest that the last three decades have denoted a change in perspectives on the role and design of individual educational assessments: from being ‘assessments of learning’ towards ‘assessments for learning’, and the transition from a testing culture towards an assessment culture. Along with differentiating views on entrepreneurship it is argued in this work that entrepreneurship education asks for learning-oriented assessments that recognize the heterogeneity of the participants as well as the entrepreneurship contexts. These assessments should allow participants to identify and understand the crucial aspects of entrepreneurship in their context, should offer them opportunities to show what they already can do and find out what aspects they can or should develop in the future in order to become (more) successful entrepreneurs in their professional context. Accordingly, the initial steps for developing such an assessment for an entrepreneurship training are described, along with three potential adjacent research areas for entrepreneurship education/training researchers. II How can we learn from differences? This second part of the book is about differences. We can probably learn much more from differences than from similarities. Research on entrepreneurship education has paid some attention to learning from experience (see, for example, among others, Cope and Watts, 2000; Politis, 2008), learning from failure (Shepherd, 2004) but it seems that learning from differences has been understudied. Differences are seen here under a wide diversity of view angles: differences between countries and cultures, differences between people – students, educators, stakeholders – differences between types of institutions and/or educational systems. Chapter 6, ‘Accounting for student/educator diversity: resurrecting coaction theory’ is authored by Colin Jones. The main aim of this chapter is to highlight the relevancy and value of using the richness of student diversity in entrepreneurship education. Despite general acknowledgement by educators that students in higher education differ, the issue of diversity remains largely ignored. The author argues that, once we can identify student diversity, we can use it to advance student learning outcomes through novel forms of student reflection. Given the experiential nature of entrepreneurship education, an opportunity exists for all educators within this domain to identify and use student diversity in ways that improve the nature of coaction between educator and student. An important conclusion to emerge from this discussion is the potential value of lessening

4


the business focus in entrepreneurship education, with a greater emphasis on student development being argued for. Jacqueline Fendt and Sylvain Bureau are the authors of the Chapter 7, ‘Small business education in a grande nation: antinomy, opportunity or both? A French grande école case study’. Some of us may be familiar with the specificities of the French educational system which can be characterized by its duality between the universities and the elitist grandes écoles (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1991). Fendt and Bureau’s research details an experimental entrepreneurship education project at a French grande école business school located in Paris. The authors first synthesize significant themes and preoccupations of contemporary entrepreneurship education. They then describe the particularities of France’s undergraduate system and its (a priori) risk of antimony between the emergence of small business entrepreneurs and the radically elite focused French management development system. In the main part of the chapter, they introduce, analyse and conceptualize an entrepreneurship education experience from a French business school. They view the program outcome though the prism of such different types of stakeholders as students, faculty, entrepreneurs, investors and corporate partners. Finally, Fendt and Bureau conclude with some insights that emerge from this experience, advance some perspectives and make suggestions for further inquiry. In Chapter 8, ‘Stakeholder participation in, and impact upon, entrepreneurship education in the UK’, Harry Matlay sets out to examine the impact of stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education in the UK. It is a very interesting topic and focus, as we know that a variety of stakeholders play an important role both in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education. Stakeholders can bring resources in a broader sense and they can also share their experiences and particular knowledge on the topic. The author first critically evaluates the literature on stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education. After having explained the research method employed in his study, he outlines the data, analysis and research findings. A main result is to underline differences in perception in terms of the roles, levels of involvement and contributions between three categories of stakeholders: primary (such as students), secondary (such as parents or alumni) and tertiary (such as politics and local communities). Matlay shows the multiple implications of his work and opens numerous doors for further research. Chapter 9, ‘Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment: a multicultural perspective’ has been written by Catherine Coron. It aims at comparing the influences different higher education systems may have on the development of entrepreneurial abilities. In light of this, the chapter tries to establish whether there are any business culture education specificities between the higher education systems of the surveyed countries (the USA, the UK, Canada, France and China) and, if so, to clearly identify them as well as try to measure their impact on entrepreneurs. Thus, the main characteristics of each country’s business training and higher education system are analysed bearing in mind the fact that the objective is to find out about the qualities required to become a ‘successful’ entrepreneur. Some authors in the field of entrepreneurship oppose an heroic entrepreneur to a more ‘ordinary’ entrepreneur (see, for example, Fayolle and Filion, 2006). Based on this, Coron attempts at questioning these entrepreneurial figures and determining to what extent they can be applied to the different studied countries.


5

III How can we learn from minorities? The word ‘minorities’ does not take the same meaning depending on the cultures and the societies in which it is used. In our book, we see minorities as particular audiences, we can teach, educate or coach, in the field of entrepreneurship, with their background, sociological and psychological profiles. The knowledge an educator receives about his/ her teaching targets and audiences is a key factor in setting up his or her teaching framework for a given course and, in our case, in entrepreneurship (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). We believe that we can learn from experiences and practices in teaching minorities, as for example, those we have selected in this part of the book: women entrepreneurs, North African entrepreneurs in France, artists and scientists, undergraduate students in Ecuador. Chapter 10, ‘Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender’, from Teresa Nelson and Susan Duffy provides the opening chapter in this part of the book. The authors take a fresh look at what business academics are teaching women – and men – about women, sex and gender via an investigation of leading entrepreneurship textbooks and their source data, recent research on sex and gender published in top academic business journals. They advance a social constructionist approach which identifies the role of institutional assumptions and their influence on how society sees and experiences women entrepreneurs including the unfounded but commonly held perspective that men and women entrepreneurs are different in kind. Nelson and Duffy illustrate the impact of this perspective on entrepreneurship teaching and research. The authors believe it is time to develop and share – with each other and our students – a more accurate, intentional, upto-date and thoughtful posture on women entrepreneurs. To this objective, they share a research agenda that will work to uncover women entrepreneur’s experience of the gendered landscape and its impact on learning and practice. In Chapter 11, ‘Entrepreneurship education and ethnic minorities: the case of North African entrepreneurs in France’, Hadj Nekka and Alain Fayolle suggest improvements for entrepreneurship education programs and systems for ethnic minorities in France. They consider that it is not possible to design or to adapt an entrepreneurship education program for entrepreneurs without a deep knowledge of the target group. Therefore their approach is mainly to look at the best fit between pedagogical tools/methods and the particular target – North African entrepreneurs in their case study. They offer a typology of North African entrepreneurs in France and examine its relevancy at the education level. Their work paves the way for further research in this area. Philippe and Pierre Silberzahn are the authors of Chapter 12, ‘Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs: a call for a new research agenda for entrepreneurship education’. As we know, and it is also the statement of the authors, entrepreneurship is not just about business. Philippe and Pierre Silberzahn show that, contrary to the popular viewpoint, the activity of artists and scientists is strongly entrepreneurial in nature. Accordingly, they propose to extend entrepreneurship education to these activities. Their work is an invitation for scholars to investigate this question further so as to better understand the specificities of the work of artists and scientists from an entrepreneurial perspective and design education programs that are relevant to them, and more generally to better understand how art, science and entrepreneurship can contribute to each other. To end this part of the book, Chapter 13, ‘What entrepreneurial competencies should be emphasized in entrepreneurship and innovation education at the undergraduate

6


level?’, written by Edgar Izquierdo and Dirk Deschoolmeester, raises important questions in entrepreneurship education. We know that an important first step toward competency-based education in the entrepreneurship discipline is the identification of relevant entrepreneurial competencies to be instilled in undergraduate and graduate students. The authors approach this issue by examining the opinions of entrepreneurs and academics experts in the entrepreneurship field. To do so, two surveys have been administered, one to Ecuadorian entrepreneurs and the other to academics from several countries in order to determine a set of relevant competencies that should be emphasized in entrepreneurship education. Results indicate relative differences in responses from the entrepreneurs’ perspective compared to the academics’ opinions. Entrepreneurs, on the one hand, chose decision-making most frequently as of high importance when embarking on and running an entrepreneurial venture, whereas academics were in favor of identifying business opportunities. IV How can we learn from institutional culture? We adopt here a broad approach of the concept of ‘institutions’. We do not only use the concept in the sense of North (1990) or Welter (2007) applying North’s thoughts in the field of entrepreneurship. Institutions are seen in our book as socio-politic systems, such as countries, universities, private organizations which secrete and instill norms and values. These institutions and their culture have a strong influence on education and contribute to orientate and shape entrepreneurship education in its different components. We are convinced that there are learning opportunities everywhere and for everyone from the study of such systems and related cultures. Chapter 14, ‘International entrepreneurship from emerging economies to developed economies: a novel theory for entrepreneurship education in China’, is proposed by HongLing Jiang and Dong Bian. While many studies focus on international entrepreneurship from developed economies to emerging economies, there is a scarcity of studies focusing on firms from emerging economies growing in developed economies. In particular, few focus on how firms from emerging economies renew their capabilities to sustain competitive advantages in developed economies. Consequently, the authors argue the importance of conducting research on firms from emerging economies which set up and grow in developed economies. A theoretical framework is accordingly proposed. This chapter brings value to international entrepreneurship education in China and on international entrepreneurship from emerging economies to developed economies. This is done by reviewing the Chinese entrepreneurship education market associated with Chinese small and medium enterprises (SMEs) going global, and develops a framework for curriculum design of international entrepreneurship education in China. The authors believe that the proposed theoretical framework not only work as a guide to improve the current international entrepreneurship program, but also improve the theoretical development of international entrepreneurship in China. Thomas Garavan, Naomi Birdthistle, Barra Ó Cinnéide and Chris Collet are the authors of Chapter 15, ‘Entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland: context, opportunities and challenges’. This chapter analyses the characteristics of entrepreneurship education in Ireland. The Irish system of entrepreneurship can be described as a cooperative system in which the state plays an important role in both shaping enterprise and entrepreneurship policy and in influencing the design and delivery of entrepreneur-


7

ship education programs. This occurs through various funding and policy initiatives. Context is important because it helps to illuminate the way in which entrepreneurial education has evolved. The Irish context is multifaceted and it can be understood in a number of ways. It has in some cases provided support for and acted as a source of strength for entrepreneurship education. Particular historical events and policy decisions have reinforced awareness of entrepreneurial education. Finally, the context explored here by the authors, provides a broad basis for more fully understanding how entrepreneurship education has evolved and grown. Norbert Kailer in Chapter 16, ‘Entrepreneurship education at universities in Germanspeaking countries: empirical findings and proposals for the design of university-wide concepts’, gives us an interesting view of entrepreneurship education in German-speaking countries. As the development of university-wide concepts for systematic entrepreneurship education is of utmost importance for universities striving to become entrepreneurial universities, this chapter analyses surveys focusing on students, alumni and academic staff of universities in the German-speaking area. Findings concerning designparameters of central importance of such concepts are presented: professional experience and competence, anticipated obstacles, supporting infrastructure, organizational structure and evaluation of entrepreneurship education programs. The chapter outlines practical proposals for the design of university-wide concepts concerning organizational embeddedness, target groups, support measures and evaluation. Norbert Kailer also discusses key elements which often arise in the design of courses such as modular structure, establishing networks with external experts and entrepreneurs, tackling anticipated obstacles and developing broad competence portfolios. Chapter 17, ‘The role of an entrepreneurial learning team in creating an enterprise culture in a university’, written by David Rae, Simon Gee and Robert Moon, contributes new insights on the ‘entrepreneurial university’ and examines issues of sponsorship, leadership, followership, timescales, sustainability, limitations and constraints for entrepreneurial teams within enterprising universities. The ‘entrepreneurial university’ is cited as a desirable and achievable goal: but it raises the question of how universities become entrepreneurial. The role of the enterprising academic in stimulating cultural change is often overlooked. This chapter presents a case study of the teaching team at the University of Derby who ‘acted as entrepreneurs’ over a five-year period to stimulate enterprising learning across the university. This chapter lends rich insights on cultural change within a modern regional university. The process of developing an enterprising culture within a university is examined by tracing the organizational, pedagogical, systemic and behavioural changes and conflicts which arose in the case of the University of Derby. The learning experiences of the teaching team as reflective practitioners are shown using narrative accounts together with feedback from internal and external actors. The case uses action learning, featuring ‘critical incidents’, and ‘practical theories’ from the change process. As a result, the case traces the impact on a higher education institution of five years of significant growth in enterprise learning from a zero base. This includes the development of an enterprise curriculum; innovative learning methods; funded projects for student and community entrepreneurship; practice-based research; and the formation of networks of educators, practitioners and influencers. It concludes with the landmark achievement of the ‘Energising Enterprise Education’ staff development event for the team and the university.

8


The last chapter of the book, Chapter 18, ‘Corporate entrepreneurship training: a routine inquiry’, written by Janice Byrne, is a conceptual one which contributes to theory on organizational routines and corporate entrepreneurship. In this chapter, the author attempts to investigate whether a corporate entrepreneurship training program can impact an individual’s intention to evoke routine change. Janice Byrne draws on the corporate entrepreneurship, training and organizational routines literature to elaborate a set of research questions. In her work, the author examines the research questions in the light of data from a case study on a French training program. The research findings and their interpretation outline the fact that sometimes the innovative practices, called for by corporate entrepreneurship, may require a reinvention of organizational routines. We know that individuals enact and reproduce organizational routines, but Janice Byrne proposes preliminary empirical evidence that a training experience can trigger revelation or questioning of these routines. Conclusion We believe that these selected chapters can bring a broad and significant contribution to research in entrepreneurship education. We are fully convinced of the necessity to create or enrich knowledge on educational and pedagogical issues in entrepreneurship education. It is the main objective of our book series under the title of Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education. As researchers and educators it is imperative that we continually question and learn. As a lot of unknown or lesser known areas remain in the field of entrepreneurship education, we would like to encourage researchers in entrepreneurship to pay more attention to the topic. Now is the time for us to reflect on the contents and objectives of the fourth and fifth volumes. Note 1. See, for example, among others, our Handbook of Research on Social Entrepreneurship (forthcoming).

References Barsoux, J.L. and P. Lawrence (1991), ‘The making of a French manager’, Harvard Business Review, July– August, 58–67. Carrier, C. (2007), ‘Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: what else beyond lectures, case studies and business plan?’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 1, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 143–59. Cope, J. and G. Watts (2000), ‘Learning by doing. An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(3), 104–24. Fayolle, A. (2007a), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 1, A General Perspective, Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar. Fayolle, A. (2007b), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 2, A Contextual Perspective, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Fayolle, A. (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship education at a crossroads: towards a more mature teaching field’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16(4), 325–37. Fayolle, A. and L.J. Filion (2006), Devenir Entrepreneur – Des enjeux aux outils, Paris: Editions Village Mondial. Fayolle, A. and B. Gailly (2008), ‘From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(6 and 7), 569–93. Harrison, R.T. and C.M. Leitch (2008), Entrepreneurial Learning, Abingdon: Routledge. North, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Politis, D. (2008), ‘The process of entrepreneurial learning. A conceptual framework’, in R.T. Harrison and C.M. Leitch (eds), Entrepreneurial Learning, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 44–71.


9

Potter, J. (2008), Entrepreneurship and Higher Education, Paris: OECD Publications. Shepherd, D.A. (2004), ‘Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 274–87. Smith, B.R., T.F. Barr, S.D. Barbosa and J.R. Kickul (2008), ‘Social entrepreneurship: a grounded learning approach to social value creation’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16(4), 339–62. Welter, F. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship in West and East Germany’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 4(2), 97–109.

PART I HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM METHODS?

2 Using simulation to develop empathy and motivate agency: an innovative pedagogical approach for social entrepreneurship education Brett R. Smith, Jill Kickul and Linda Coley

No one can be a changemaker without empathy. (Bill Drayton, Founder of Ashoka)

While the field of social entrepreneurship is rapidly emerging in both academic and practitioner communities, pedagogical development and research for social entrepreneurship education has received relatively little attention (Brock et al., 2008). This lack of attention and focus on pedagogy is somewhat troubling given the distinctive challenge of educating future social entrepreneurs (Tracey and Phillips, 2007). A focus on pedagogical aspects of social entrepreneurship must recognize the commonalities of commercial entrepreneurship education and highlight the issues that are unique to social entrepreneurship. While entrepreneurship education has been defined as knowledge transfer of how, by whom, and with what effects, opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited (Hindle, 2007), the domain of social entrepreneurship adds the complexities of identifying qualitatively different forms of opportunities, navigating the value-capture problem, managing and measuring social impact and outcomes, and addressing personal and group-related identity conflicts. In short, the creation of a pedagogical framework that considers factors of social value and social justice greatly complicates the entrepreneurial process. To educate students about social entrepreneurship, scholars suggest a number of pedagogical approaches ranging from in-class cases to co-curricular creation of social ventures (Smith et al., 2008; Tracey and Phillips, 2007). The range of educational approaches varies in their degree of hands-on experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) and their practicality due to time constraints within a given course. While these educational approaches offer valuable dimensions that engage students, one important omission among the suggested approaches is the use of simulation. From a pedagogical perspective, a simulation offers an innovative approach for experiencing the complexities of social entrepreneurship in a learning environment. Rooted in realism and face validity, the technique engages experiential learning while accommodating the limits of space and time constraints imposed by a typical classroom setting. While numerous definitions of social entrepreneurship exist, there appears to be broad consensus about two aspects of the domain: 1. 2.

social entrepreneurship involves the creativity, imagination and innovation often associated with the broader field of entrepreneurship; and the outcomes of social entrepreneurship are focused on addressing persistent social problems particularly to those who are marginalized (Zahra et al., Forthcoming). 13

14


Rather than focusing on the creation of financial value creation, social entrepreneurship is primarily concerned with the creation of social value for disenfranchised members of society. To date, relatively little attention has focused on understanding the process through which prospective social entrepreneurs are drawn to opportunities to assist those who are marginalized. While economic theory predicts the rent-seeking behavior of prospective commercial entrepreneurs, we focus instead on the prosocial behavior of social entrepreneurship students to begin to understand a critical question in the field of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship education: why do (potential) social entrepreneurs choose to act? One reason social entrepreneurs may choose to act is empathy. Empirical evidence suggests a positive and significant relationship between empathy and prosocial behavior (for a meta-analysis, see Eisenberg and Miller, 1987). Empathy is showing compassion for another person’s situation through one’s own world view or perspective and involves understanding how another person feels both cognitively and emotionally (Granzin and Olsen, 1991). The basic logic underlying the relationship between empathy and prosocial behavior suggests that taking the perspective of another, particularly one found in a distressing situation, is likely to induce prosocial behavior for either altruistic or egoistic reasons (for a review, see Batson, 1987). Building upon this literature, we contend that empathy leads to an increased likelihood of taking action in the form of social entrepreneurship. To address this, we examine the qualitative findings from the use of a simulation called Star-Power. In so doing, we offer some initial evidence about the pedagogical use of the Star-Power simulation and provide four significant contributions to the teaching and research of social entrepreneurship. Specifically, this study provides an instrument for teaching about the complexities of social entrepreneurship, a linkage of the theoretical constructs of empathy and agency to the practice of social entrepreneurship (Fiet, 2000), a mechanism for learning and reflection about the role of personal and group world views on social values and social justice in social entrepreneurship behavior, and an illustration of how simulations can inform and be informed by a social entrepreneurship research agenda. The chapter proceeds as follows. First, we will explain the role of empathy in the social entrepreneurship process. Second, we discuss the role of simulation in social entrepreneurship pedagogy. Third, we review the findings from student participation in the simulation. Finally, we explore future avenues for research on social entrepreneurship pedagogy and the relationship between empathy and social entrepreneurship. The role of empathy in social entrepreneurship While commercial and social entrepreneurship have much in common, one of the most important differences is the nature of the entrepreneurial opportunity (Austin et al., 2006). Whereas commercial entrepreneurial opportunities are focused on the creation of economic value, social entrepreneurship opportunities are focused on the creation of social value – that is, some form of societal improvement. As a result, the decision process for prospective commercial and social entrepreneurs is likely to be influenced by different factors. In developing a theory of entrepreneurial action, McMullen and Shepherd (2006) explain the decision to act upon identified entrepreneurial opportunities is a function of the feasibility and desirability of exploitation. Assuming feasibility is constant across both types of opportunities, the desirability of pursuing a commercial

Using simulation to develop empathy and motivate agency

15

opportunity or a social opportunity may also differ. While recognizing desirability may occur for a number of reasons (for example, Cyert and March, 1963), one important consideration in the commercial entrepreneur’s decision making processes is the financial impact. By comparison, a primary motivator for the prospective social entrepreneur is social value creation for the marginalized. But, why are prospective social entrepreneurs drawn to the marginalized? For centuries, the role of emotion in prosocial human action has been studied (for a brief review, see Eisenberg and Miller, 1987). While there is some debate about whether action is pursued for altruistic or egoistic reasons,1 psychologists generally agree that empathy is a major determinant of prosocial behavior in a wide range of contexts (cf Batson and Coke, 1981; Davis, 1980; Hoffman, 1984). Empathy is defined as ‘an affective state that stems from the comprehension of another’s emotional state or condition, and that is congruent with it’ (Eisenberg and Miller, 1987, p. 91). In developing theoretical paths to helping behavior, Batson (1987) developed three paths by which prosocial behavior may occur. The first two paths suggest egoistic motivations for helping behavior (termed reward seeking/punishment avoiding motivation and arousal reducing egoistic motivation). The third path departed from the traditional approach which viewed all intentional action as egoistic and instead presented a path where prosocial behavior occurred for altruistic motivation. This third model, termed empathetically evoked altruistic motivation, offered a theoretical model linking empathy to prosocial behavior (see Figure 2.1). Given the increasing empirical evidence supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis (for example, Batson and Shaw, 1991), we focus on this third path as one possible explanation for engaging social entrepreneurship. According to the model, a precipitating or instigating situation leads a person to begin to adopt the perspective of another. The perspective-taking of another is often related to one’s own self-perspective or the perspective about another’s perceived reaction to similar situations (Batson, 1991). Often, adoption of the perspective of another person takes place in times of trouble or during personal distress of another. As such, the identification with another’s distress leads to a vicarious emotional response of empathy. This empathetic response may be induced by prior experience in similar situations or a feeling of attachment to the other person (Batson, 1991; Lee and Holden, 1999); and it is related to the magnitude of the other person’s need and the strength of attachment to the other. This attachment can occur for a number of reasons including perceived similarity as well as attractiveness. In turn, this emotion-matching leads to an altruistic motivation to help another. The basic premise of this hypothesis is that the suffering of another leads an individual to seek to reduce suffering for that other not for personal reasons but for altruistic reasons. The arousal of the motivational state leads the individual to embark on a hedonic calculus of the cost–benefit analysis of helping behavior. The cost–benefit analysis compares the magnitude of the suffering of another with the cost associated with engaging in behavior that will reduce or eliminate the suffering of the other. Such costs may be physical, mental, social, political or financial. Finally, when the benefits outweigh the costs, the individual engages in helping behavior. Such helping behavior is thought to occur ‘if: 1.) helping is possible; 2.) the relative benefit of helping is perceived to be positive; and 3.) the relative benefit of helping is perceived to be more positive than the relative benefit of having someone else help’ (Batson and Shaw, 1991). The empathy–altruism–prosocial behavior model provides an excellent theoretical

16

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Instigating Situation:

Adoption of perspective of other

Internal Response:

Vicarious emotional response of empathy

Motivational State:

Altruistic motivation to reduce other’s need

Hedonic Calculus:

Cost–benefit analysis of helping behavior

Behavioral Response:

Help (have another help) to reduce other’s need

Source: Adapted from Baston (1987).

Figure 2.1

Altruistic path to helping behavior

explanation to understand the decision-making process of a social entrepreneur. While there may be no personal gain (financial or otherwise) for the social entrepreneur, the opportunity to assist another in need represents an important foundation from which to build a theory that explains the motivations of the social entrepreneur. Given its potential importance, we now examine how the model itself may be useful for social entrepreneurship education. The role of simulation in social entrepreneurship pedagogy Given its infancy, the field of social entrepreneurship education is still developing. To begin to educate students about social entrepreneurship, several pedagogical approaches have been suggested (see Brock et al., 2008). However, one important approach that has been overlooked is the use of a simulation. One possible reason for this neglect is that the relative infancy of the field suggests that simulations specific to the domain may not yet have been developed. While this might be the case, it may be possible to draw upon simulations used in other fields to specifically address some of the most salient issues in the field of social entrepreneurship. One such simulation is Star-Power which has been used in a number of fields including management for more than three decades. The purpose of Star-Power as a pedagogical tool is to combine the increased interest, involvement and enthusiasm of simulations, rooted in realism and face validity,


17

with the broader experiential learning environment (Keys and Wolfe, 1990; Kinnear and Klammer, 1987; McGrath, 1982) in which social entrepreneurship is embedded. According to the director’s instructions, Star-Power is: A game in which a low-mobility, three tiered society is built through the distribution of wealth in the form of chips. Once established, the group with the most wealth is given the power to make the rules of the game. Almost without exception, they make rules which secure and enhance their position of power. The other two groups generally consider these rules to be unfair and often label them dictatorial, fascist or racist. Sometimes, there is an open revolt against the top group, other times the other two groups give up and drop out. When the frustration and conflict reaches a certain level, the director ends the game. The experience is then analyzed and discussed. (Shirts, 1993: 3)

The Star-Power simulation: an overview In the simulation, students blindly select different colored chips out of a bag that contains a random assortment of different colored chips. The chips each have different point values attached to the color of the chip. The creation of the three tiers occurs as students engage in two rounds of trading chips with other members of the class period based on pre-specified rules. After the first round of trading, the students are divided into three groups based upon the total point value of their five most valuable chips. Each group is then provided buttons which are worn during the balance of the game.2 At the end of each trading session, each group is given three bonus chips which are allocated to individuals within their group based upon a vote from the members. Then, points are totaled again and adjustments between tiers are made if necessary. Then, students draw chips again but this time the bags of chips provided to each of the three groups are biased with the highest group drawing from a bag containing the majority of higher value chips. After this biased drawing, a second round of trading occurs followed by a second round of awarding of bonus chips. Following this second round of trading, the group of students with the highest scores is given the power to make rules for all subsequent rounds of trading. To increase the effectiveness of the Star-Power simulation, it is important to provide an opportunity for students to reflect upon their experiences and to share these experiences with the entire class. Following the in class simulation (which can be completed in approximately 75 minutes), the students are given an assignment to write a reflection paper for the next class session that addresses two questions: 1. 2.

How did you feel during the Star-Power simulation? Why did we use this simulation in a social entrepreneurship course?

When the students return for the next class session, the entire discussion is focused around these two questions. The first question addresses issues related to the emotional aspects of the different groups and how these emotions motivated action. By allowing students to hear the experiences from each of the groups, they gain a broader sense of how the emotions may have differed based upon the group in which the student was located and how these emotions impacted individual action and group decision-making. The second question is used to link the learning experience of the simulation with important constructs in social entrepreneurship.

18


Experiencing social entrepreneurship: multiple benefits and realities The simulation and reflection are consistent with experiential learning theory (ELT; Kolb, 1984). According to ELT, the process of learning occurs through different learning modes consisting of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. The Star-Power simulation serves as the concrete experience in which the student is an active participant. During this time, the student is generally focused on playing the game and pays relatively little attention to symbolic meaning of the game. As the class session ends, the student is asked to begin the reflective exercise. From our experience, it seems important that the reflection occurs before too much time passes from the concrete experience of the simulation. We have used both 48 hours and one-week intervals between the simulation and reflection, and the former appears to be more effective from the student point of view. Following their reflection, we dedicate a 75-minute class session to debrief the exercise. In this session the level of student participation has been excellent with nearly every student offering some comments. The discussion serves as the basis for which the students develop their abstract conceptualization about various aspects of social entrepreneurship with which they experiment throughout the term. Overall, the Star-Power simulation, reflection and analysis take a total of 150 minutes (in class). From our perspective, the simulation provides a high leverage learning experience that balances the benefits of hands-on learning with the time constraints of curricular setting. For the purpose of social entrepreneurship education, the Star-Power simulation offers a pedagogical tool that reaches beyond course readings and case studies by placing the students in a more experiential role. In this way, it augments some of the previously identified pedagogical suggestions but also accommodates the potential time constraints of academic courses. More importantly, the Star-Power simulation provides students an opportunity, especially in the developed world, to develop empathy for those who are marginalized or poor. While students of social entrepreneurship may not have experienced being part of a marginalized group, the Star-Power simulation provides an opportunity for students to see, feel and experience the associated emotions of being marginalized by a system and a set of rules. In addition to reflecting on their own actions, they receive input from their classmates, who were on either their team or competing teams, about their personal experiences. This reflection process affords an avenue to see and hear the effects one’s own actions and decisions have on the feelings and behavior of others. As such, the simulation provides first-hand experiences for students to understand the emotional responses of the marginalized. For prospective social entrepreneurs, an understanding of these responses may prove beneficial in the development and implementation of innovative solutions for marginalized populations. Overall, the Star-Power simulation represents a pedagogical technique that allows students to experience some of unique aspects of social entrepreneurship in a handson, experiential way. Importantly, the simulation may also provide an opportunity for students to understand that they have the ability to do something about systemic inequalities of marginalization. In this way, the Star-Power simulation may allow social entrepreneurship students a greater awareness about the importance of human agency in creating social change. Thus, our findings suggest that the Star-Power simulation provides a pedagogical technique for students to experience the empathy–altruism– prosocial behavior model for themselves.


19

Lessons learned from the use of Star-Power There are multiple lessons learned during the Star-Power simulation, reflection paper and ensuing class discussion that are pertinent to social entrepreneurship. As a first step to begin to understand the salience of the Star-Power simulation, we examined the reflection papers of 77 undergraduate students who participated in the Star-Power simulation during the 2007–08 academic year. Given the open-ended nature of the reflection paper, each paper was read several times to begin to identify common themes across the papers. After assembling a list of common themes and constructs, each paper was reread to identify some of the most common occurrences across the papers and to identify representative quotes that capture the nature of the learning The following is a brief overview of some of the key lessons learned and representative quotes from student participants. Each quote comes directly from the reflection papers submitted by the students on the class period following the simulation: An increased awareness of the role of social structure The field of social entrepreneurship often involves opportunities for the creation of social value for those who have been marginalized in some way. In many cases, this marginalization occurs for reasons that may be beyond the control of the individual. For example, people born in sub-Saharan Africa are at a decided disadvantage to people born in developed countries. As a result, it is important for students and prospective social entrepreneurs to recognize the role social structure plays in the marginalization of disadvantaged populations. The Star-Power simulation was particularly effective at making the role of social structure salient to students. For example, one student, reflecting a common theme throughout the reflection papers, wrote: It did not matter as to the skill of the individual or their entrepreneurial genius . . . In a way, this directly relates to the way our society works today. The majority of the time, the economic class you are born into is the one that you will remain in for your entire life. No matter how hard you may work, if you are working minimum wage jobs and have a family of four to feed, it is nearly impossible to save any money to invest in the future. Based on the opportunities available to you as an individual, mainly in regards to your education, the scope of your financial future can be determined.

The increased awareness of the role of social structure is an important issue in the development of empathy. Recalling the empathy–altruism–prosocial behavior model (Batson 1987), the first step in the model represents the adoption of the perspective of another. The Star-Power simulation made this instigating situation salient to students and often resulted in the development of an internal response of empathy upon reflection of the exercise. A greater understanding of emotions experienced by those who are marginalized Often, the development of empathy involves a cognitive or affective matching of emotions with those in need. In the case of Star-Power, a deeper understanding of these emotions occurred in different ways. Some students found themselves to be members of the marginalized group for at least part of the simulation. For these students, they experienced first hand some of emotional issues of being marginalized. For example, a couple of students described the various emotions experienced this way:

20

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Originally, I felt embarrassed that I had done so poorly. I became even more determined to work my way out of my situation. However, after the second round, I took into account the factor of chance and opportunity . . . As the embarrassment began to subside, I started to feel frustration and anger towards my situation and those in the upper-class . . . This emotion was fueled by the fact that someone in the upper class implied they were more successful because they were better negotiators and we were in our situation because we were less intelligent. This game was a great lesson in personalizing the feeling of being marginalized by an oppressive system. I felt feelings of intense frustration, anger and inequity.

Beyond the experiencing of concrete emotions, many students reflected upon the experiencing of emotions with empathy. In many cases, students realized both the affective and cognitive perspective-taking that occurred during the simulation. Even when students were not part of the marginalized group, they often recognized either attachment to their classmates who were marginalized or an authentic belief that they themselves could have easily found themselves in the same situation. In this way, students began examining the social categories which were used to define themselves and, in some cases, redefine those categories. The quotes of several students reflected these emotions and beliefs: The simulation allows us to experience the feelings of oppression rather than simply hearing about it. Throughout the semester, I will remember the experience of what it feels like to walk in these people’s shoes. It’s one thing to know intellectually about social classes. It’s another to spend an hour and a half experiencing the rage of a Circle, the self-righteousness of a Triangle or the frustration of a Square. The most profound connection between the simulation and reality is the fact that people are just people. It does not matter what color you are or where you were born or what you do for a living. It doesn’t change the fact that the little boy in Nairobi is born with the same potential as you. I may have felt smart and powerful and all those things that . . . rich people feel about themselves, but what is truly intelligent is the comment made by the Circle: ‘It could have been you.’

Reaction to charity by marginalized group Following the second round of trading, the highest group (triangle) instituted rules of charity that allowed the lowest group (circle) the opportunity to some a minimum level of chip value. In many ways, this tactic shared commonalities with both minimum-wage legislation and the provision of foreign aid. That is, a powerful coalition was trying to insure at least some minimum level of subsistence for a marginalized population in the form of charity. While such an approach may be consistent with an arousal-reducing egoistic motivation for helping behavior, the simulation provided some real insight about how marginalized groups often respond. One student described it this way: ‘Those from the circle group didn’t want charity from the triangle group, rather they wanted a more level playing field.’ As students began to engage in reflection and emotion-matching consistent with an empathy-based approach to helping behavior, they began to more fully understand why marginalized populations may not appreciate aid. This insight serves an important issue as students begin to think about the development and implementation of social innova-


21

tions and about the sustainability of such innovations. While the creation of social value is important, a theory of social change must also involve and account for response to the manner in which the social value is created. The role of human agency in social entrepreneurship Finally, the Star-Power simulation provided students the opportunity to reflect on their behavioral responses outside of the game. As mentioned previously, entrepreneurial action is a function of both feasibility and desirability (McMullen and Shepherd, 2006). In many cases, the simulation seemed to increase students’ desirability to take action. Students often recognized their current role in the social structure in the world and how that role allowed them to take action to promote social justice and social change. For example, some students commented: Each one of us is a Triangle in the real world. The simulation helped me better understand social entrepreneurship because I learned that as a powerful individual I can make a difference. It made me understand how powerful social entrepreneurs can be if they invest in the same passion and drive (as people do for an economic goal) towards a social goal.

The final stage of the empathy–altruism–prosocial behavior model is prosocial behavior. Within the confines of the Star-Power simulation, the simulation is often stopped before prosocial behavior can occur. In some cases, students get so caught up in the simulation that they engage in egoistic behavior rather than prosocial behavior. For example, one student commented, ‘once I became a Triangle, I knew I had a real chance to win the game. Then, the game really took over’. Another student explained, ‘Our human “us versus them” mentality took hold and it seemed perfectly obvious to all of us that the rules should be made to benefit the triangles and to prevent the squares and circles from replacing any of us’. This provides at least some preliminary evidence that the application of empathy may be related to the reflective process that occurs after the simulation. Discussion and directions for future inquiry While simulations have long been used in areas such as strategic management, leadership and decision-making, the use of simulations in the area of social entrepreneurship is relatively new. The use of Star-Power represents an opportunity to utilize some of the unique learning aspects of simulations in the context of social entrepreneurship. The use of the Star-Power simulation, written reflection paper and class discussion provides realworld learning in a stimulating, experiential environment. This pedagogical approach may allow students to move from the concrete experience of the simulation to observation and reflection of the paper to the formation of abstract concepts and generalizations as suggested by experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). It also offers an opportunity for instructors to highlight a range of theoretical constructs (structuration theory, social categorization, relative deprivation, procedural justice, equity theory and empathy) that underlie some of the issues related to social entrepreneurship. Finally, it may create awareness for students to recognize more clearly their own ability to make a difference

22


through social entrepreneurship. While very exploratory, the initial student experiences suggest this may be one important way for students to begin to understand the nuances and complexities of developing social innovations for those who are marginalized. Additionally, this work answers Brock et al.’s (2008) recommendation that future research include lessons that are learned by students. By adopting a student-centric approach that allows the student to consider multiple perspectives, the simulation gives the student a higher degree of association with many of the problems and situations that social entrepreneurs face. Yet, it is conducted in a relatively simple, experiential environment that accommodates the constraints of a classroom setting while inducing genuine responses by those participating in the simulation. One of the most significant benefits of the simulation, reflection paper and class discussion is the opportunity to have students truly experience and articulate the feelings associated with different classes of society as a framework for recognizing their own ability to make a difference. Bill Drayton, the founder of Ashoka, suggests empathy is the most critical foundational skill for a social entrepreneur and it is something that can be learned. As such, the use of the Star-Power simulation allows students the opportunity to be exposed to the empathy–altruism–proscial behavior model in a hands-on, experiential manner to learn about the power that they have to make a difference in society. Some researchers have noted the importance of precipitating events as a harbinger for involvement in social entrepreneurship. For example, many people, after taking trips to devastated areas such as villages affected by the Asian tsunami or New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, become motivated to try to make a difference. Such an approach is consistent with the empathy–prosocial behavior relationship. While it may be possible for some people to travel to devastated regions, there may be a number of logistical factors that limit this type experience for students. If these precipitating experiences lead to increased empathy and ultimately increased intentions/action, the use of a simulation may be one important pedagogical approach to increasing interest and participation in the field of social entrepreneurship. While the focus of this chapter is on pedagogy and teaching, simulations also offer great utility for empirical research. An important direction for future research is to quantitatively examine the pre- and post-effects of the simulation and different aspects of empathy. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) developed by Davis (1980) suggests that empathy is a multidimensional construct that may be best understood exploring its sub-dimensions. Therefore, it may also be important to see if the simulation is more relevant to certain dimensions of empathy. The IRI was developed to tap into both the intellectual and emotional components of empathy. The four dimensions include: perspective-taking (tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological perspective of others); fantasy (tendency to transpose themselves imaginatively into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters such as in books or movies); empathetic concern (otheroriented feelings of sympathy and concern for unfortunate others); and personal distress (self-oriented feelings of personal anxiety and unease in tense interpersonal settings). The IRI may represent an important next step in furthering our understanding of the role of empathy in social entrepreneurship. One of the great challenges in the study of social entrepreneurship is the identification of a large sample size of social entrepreneurial ventures. Simulation offers a possible means for addressing this issue. While very preliminary, the present study suggest


23

that use of pre- and post-data in simulations could provide at least one fruitful path for conducting social entrepreneurship research that identifies how and why some people choose to become social entrepreneurs. This could lead to an explanation of findings that seem to suggest that during the discussion phase of the simulation, motivation for social action appeared to occur strongest from both the upper class and the lower class (versus the middle class). Furthermore, it seemed that for the upper class, the motivation seemed to be related to relative deprivation; while motivation for the lower class, appeared to be driven by a social injustice. Underlying social entrepreneurship are the multiple tangible and intangible benefits and rewards that are exhibited by a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served, as well as the outcomes that are created. Social entrepreneurs seek to provide social improvements and enhancements to their communities, including attractive return on investments (both social and financial) to their key stakeholders. Social entrepreneurs assess their impact and influence in terms of their social impact and outcomes, not simply in terms of size, growth or processes. A critical starting point in understanding the potential impact and influence of social entrepreneurship and guaranteeing its future is to understand the diverse motivations of aspiring social entrepreneurs. Toward this goal, the use of simulation may prove important for both pedagogical and research purposes. Finally, as the field of social entrepreneurship continues to develop, we need to provide new educational and pedagogical tools that enable our students to realize their potential in acting as change agents for themselves and their communities, thereby allowing them to invent profitable and sustainable approaches that create solutions to change society for the better. Notes 1. Prosocial behavior is defined as voluntary, intentional behavior that results in benefits for another. An important issue is that the motive for prosocial behavior is unspecified and may be positive, negative or both (Eisenberg, 1982). By comparison, altruistic behavior is defined as voluntary, intentional behavior without expectation for either receiving positive rewards or avoiding negative consequences (Eisenberg and Miller, 1987). 2. For our purposes, we used triangles for the highest group, squares for the middle group and circles for the lowest group.

References Austin, J., H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern (2006), ‘Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both?’, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. Batson, C. (1987), ‘Prosocial motivation: is it ever truly altruistic?’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, pp. 65–122. Batson, C. (1991), The Altruism Question: Toward a Psychological Answer, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Batson, C. and J. Coke (1981), ‘Empathy: a source of altruistic motivation for helping?’, in J. Rushton and R. Sorrentino (eds), Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social, Personality and Developmental Perspectives, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Batson, C. and L. Shaw (1991), ‘Evidence of altruism: toward a pluralism of prosocial motives’, Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–22. Brock, D., S. Steiner and M. Kim (2008), ‘Social entrepreneurship education: is it achieving the desired aims?’, United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) Conference Proceedings, p. 832. Cyert, R. and J. March (1963), A Behaviourial Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Davis, M. (1980), ‘A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy’, JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

24


Eisenberg, N. (1982), ‘The development of reasoning of prosocial behavior’, in N. Eisenberg (ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behavior, New York: Academic Press. Eisenberg, N. and P. Miller (1987), ‘The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors’, Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119. Fiet, J. (2000), ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 101–17. Granzin, K. and J. Olsen (1991), ‘Characterizing participants in activities protecting the environment: a focus on donating, recycling and conservation behaviors’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 1–27. Hindle, K. (2007), ‘Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 104–26. Hoffman, M. (1984), ‘Interaction of affect and cognition in empathy’, in C. Izard, J. Kagan and R. Zajonc (eds), Emotions, Cognition and Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keys, B. and J. Wolfe (1990), ‘The role of management games and simulations in education and research’, Journal of Management, 16, 307–36. Kinnear, T. and S. Klammer (1987), ‘Management perspectives: the GE experience and beyond’, Journal of Business Research, 15, 491–501. Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lee, J. and S. Holden (1999), ‘Understanding determinants of environmentally conscious behavior’, Psychology & Marketing, 16, 373–92. McGrath, J. (1982), ‘Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas’, in J. McGrath, J. Martin and R. Kulka (eds), Judgment Calls in Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. McMullen, J. and D. Shepherd (2006), ‘Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur’, Academy of Management Review, 31, 132–52. Shirts, G. (1993), Star-Power: Director’s Instructions, Del Mar, CA: Simulation Training Systems, Inc. Smith, B., T. Barr, S. Barbosa and J. Kickul (2008), ‘Social entrepreneurship: a grounded learning approach to social value creation’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16, 339–62. Tracey, P. and N. Phillips (2007), ‘The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: a postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 264–71. Zahra, S., E. Gedajlovic, D. Neubaum and J. Shulman (Forthcoming), ‘A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges’, Journal of Business Venturing.

3

The creative industries and entrepreneurship education: the potential contribution of student-oriented case studies Barra Ó Cinnéide

Introduction This chapter emphasizes the growing recognition of the creative industries’s (CI) importance as an important sector, worldwide, and its particular impact in Ireland in recent times. A main contention is that this particular business domain has particular innovative and competitive characteristics that should be more widely featured within entrepreneurship education. It is believed that this can be advanced through using exciting, innovative cases, especially relating to the entertainment industry. There is a pressing need for students to be incentivized from being ‘passive’ attendees on courses to being ‘participative’ in terms of discussion, deriving options for decision-making, creativity, and so on. For this to happen, the learning scenario must provide, among other options, attractive and attention directing cases that help to grab the students’ imagination. Case studies and in particular, the discussion they provoke, are acknowledged to provide a beneficial learning experience, since using case studies is an effective mechanism for bringing ‘real life’ experience into the classroom (Easton, 1982; Leenders and Erskine, 1989; Richardson et al., 1995). However, cases are often, taken ‘on trust’ from a clearing house collection by judging their appropriateness from accompanying teaching notes. However, there is no guarantee that they will transfer culturally or prove satisfactory at the level of the students in question. Perhaps the most challenging task for educators and trainers who wish to use topical case material is for themselves to undertake creation of new exciting examples. Ireland: a special case? There are a number of factors that seem to favour the case approach in Ireland, where people have a particular advantage in teaching and writing in a lingua franca that is most widely used in case work, English. As a consequence, most recommended educational and training texts are non-Irish, being predominantly of US or UK origin. Because of the country’s small population, this makes it difficult to encourage case writing in the Irish business/management context with so much English-language material on offer. But the overseas cases available in texts and through case clearing houses have scenarios that are indeed ‘foreign’ to many students. For example, a typical Harvard case can refer to a conglomerate with multibillion dollar sales. This can be particularly stressful for European (including Irish) students in a class session or examination situation. As a result, some Irish academics have resorted to supplementing texts from abroad with specially developed material relating to Ireland. This has given a particular fillip to local business research that has led to publication of a significant level of new Irish cases, many of them on enterprise/entrepreneurship topics. 25

26


An examination of Ireland’s cultural inheritance from its Celtic past reveals a tradition of learning, innovation and creativity spanning over a millennium. In today’s world, the current author believes that the value of the broader social and cultural contexts in driving entrepreneurship is seriously underestimated. Research indicates that a network of complex forces links international competitive success with self-confidence and a host of psychological phenomena based on identity, expressed through cultural differentiation such as language, literature, music and dance. Culture is an important part of the canvas linking nations, regions and local communities. It concerns identity, self-respect and self-confidence; it breaks barriers, opening up new perspectives. Yet it is difficult to measure the economic results of these. A seminal study on shifts in Irish society over the previous century (Lee, 1989) analysed the need for an environment which links language, identity and national self-confidence. Ireland’s prosperity depends critically on understanding, appreciating and exploiting, if you will, its unique characteristics and traditions. This was well understood by Ireland’s former Taoiseach, Prime Minister, Seán Lemass. To quote Lemass: ‘In our efforts to bring prosperity to the country, we will find that the spirit of Irish nationality will be our greatest asset, and our surest guarantee of success’ (Ó Cinnéide, 2002). In parallel with a surge in nationalist/political activities over a century ago, (culminating in independence from Britain in 1922), there was a major cultural revolution in Ireland. This led to a ferment of dedication to issues such as the Irish language’s preservation, music, dance and (Anglo-)Irish literature (Ó Cinnéide, 2002). It is of interest that most of the Irish cultural renaissance, post-1922, had been undertaken by community, non-profit groups. This occurred, basically because support from either the public or private sectors was comparatively meagre – at least until the recent emergence of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy!1 In search of answers explaining the ‘Celtic Tiger’ Ireland has an extremely open economy with combined imports and exports representing up to 160 per cent of the country’s GDP. Events like world recessions have tested the ingenuity and organizational skills of Irish management in both the public and private sectors. In spite of many vicissitudes, the economy has not only survived but has developed dramatically, experiencing an unprecedented economic boom. An increasing number of experts are frustrated by the failures of conventional political theories to explain entrepreneurship and economic development, especially in a small country like Ireland. The broader social and cultural context driving entrepreneurship is seriously underestimated. A network of complex forces links international competitive success with selfconfidence and a host of psychological phenomena based on identity, expressed through cultural differentiation such as language, literature, music and dance. In order for professionals, today, to achieve an edge for both themselves and their businesses, a deep self-confidence must be present. The main determinant of self-confidence is personal and national identity. Since language is the most critical component of identity, it plays a special role in enterprise development at both national and local level. The Scandinavian nations, with languages that are spoken by no one but themselves, have been world leaders in innovation and design. Their sense of uniqueness binds the Danes together, for example, and motivates them, while their sense of difference means they are

The creative industries and entrepreneurship education

27

acutely aware of cultural and linguistic differences in other markets and countries. In a highly competitive economic environment, where niche marketing strategies are crucial, sensitivity to differences is crucial. In Ireland’s case, too little credit has been given to what has happened in terms of developments in the indigenous sector. This included not just the growth of vibrant enterprises but, also, the emergence of a national feeling of pride, witnessed most dramatically in the upswing within culture and the arts. This happened across the board but, especially in traditional music and dance. This has raised consideration of the ability of enterprises in a small country like Ireland (with a population of less than four million) to take on much larger competitors in the global economy. For example, two highly successful shows, Riverdance and Lord of the Dance (to be considered in detail later), proved to be ‘minnows capable of fighting “above their weight”’. Culture and its national impact We need to review the values and meanings embodied in the way we view the world, (Bradley and Kennelly, 2008). Evidence shows that a network of complex forces links international competitive success with self-confidence and a host of psychological phenomena. These are based on identity, expressed through cultural differentiation such as language, literature, music and dance. A main determinant of self-confidence is personal and national identity. Studies on shifts in Irish society over the previous century (for instance, Lee, 1989) have identified the need for an environment which links language, identity and national self-confidence. Ireland’s prosperity depends critically on understanding, appreciating and exploiting, if you will, its unique characteristics and traditions. There has been much conjecture over the past two decades how Ireland has had one of the fastest growing economies in the world. An increasing number of experts were perplexed by the failures of conventional theories to explain the growth of entrepreneurship and economic development, especially in a small country like Ireland. Many commentators have even expressed the opinion that the performance of the Irish economy in recent years is more akin to an economic ‘miracle’ than anything they have witnessed to date. Culture and societal factors can be elements in the genesis of entrepreneurship Today, professionals are constantly seeking to achieve an edge for both themselves and their businesses, so a deep self-confidence must be present. For this to happen, there must be features such as the appropriate ‘persona’ attributes and a sense of compatible ‘identity’ with the challenges and tasks ahead. In today’s complex world, the current author believes that the value of the broader social and cultural contexts in driving entrepreneurship is seriously underestimated, with the issue of a strong attachment to the national language being a case in point. It is obviously a critical component of identity, playing an important role in both international and local levels. In Ireland’s case, when analysing the origins and factors favouring the development of the ‘Celtic Tiger’, several commentators pointed to features other than those that would be ascribable in traditional economic circles. These ‘new’ factors include: culture, societal cohesion, national identity, ‘sense of place’ and forward-looking policies at national, regional and local levels. A society embracing such factors within the ‘new

28


social economics’ way of thinking enable a small country like Ireland to be distinctly unique and cosmopolitan, while yet being self-reliant and socially cohesive. For instance, employees within innovation-led economies need to acquire multiple skill-sets suited to the information age, distinctively different from those in the traditional product sectors. This could well explain the ‘tiger’ miracle that happened and that, hopefully, will allow Ireland withstand the vagaries of this millenium’s global economy. Culture, geographic location and globalization have been increasingly identified as major factors in determining business success. As Michael Porter (1998) explains, these factors remain central to innovation and competition. Moreover, the more complex dynamic and knowledge oriented the world’s economy becomes, the more likely this is to happen. Porter contends that competitive advantages, globally, lie in local features, for example, national identity, motivation, relationships and knowledge, that cannot be matched elsewhere. History of Irish music and dance B’fhearr liom ná bó go mbeadh rince agam, is dá mbeadh, ní phósfainn ach píobaire. (Old Gaelic saying) (I would much prefer to have a dance than a cow, and if I had the chance, I wouldn’t marry anyone but a piper.)

The Normans are given credit for having introduced ‘round dances’ to Ireland and may have been associated with May Day rites and observances. There is definitive evidence of dance in Ireland in the Middle Ages with a reference in an early English poem, dating from the 1300s: ‘Ich am of Irlaunde . . . Come ant daunce wyt me in Irlaunde!’ References to Irish dancing became numerous in the sixteenth century, abounding in Anglo-Irish and English literature. The travelling dancing master was an important figure in the social life of the countryside. The famous English traveller, Arthur Young, in the second half of the eighteenth century recounted his experiences in Ireland as follows: ‘Dancing is very general among the people. Dancing masters travel through the country with a piper or blind fiddler . . . from cabin to cabin and the pay is 6 pence per quarter’ (Halton, 1892). Music and dance: handed down through centuries An English writer, Richard Head, published account of Irish music and dance, commenting on Sunday ‘amusements,’ wrote: ‘in every field a fiddle and the lasses footing it till they are all of a foom’ (Head, 1674). A similar observation was made by another traveller, John Carr: ‘A Sunday with the peasantry in Ireland is not unlike the same day in France. After the hours of devotion, a spirit of gaiety shines upon every hour, the bagpipe is heard, and every foot in motion’ (Carr, 1805). A most interesting reference to music and dancing is found in the description by an English traveller, Thomas Dineley, of a journey he made through Ireland in 1681: ‘They, (the Irish), are of this day addicted, (on holidays, after the bagpipe, Irish harpe, or Jews harpe), to dance after their country fashion, (that is), the long dance one after another of all conditions masters, mrs, servants’ (Breathnach, 1971). In the latter half of the eighteenth century every group of cabins in a village had its own piper, we are told, and every countryman had his halfpenny for the piper on Sunday afternoon:


29

from all this activity we have inherited an immensely rich legacy of dance music. Although now being eroded unceasingly, since the early 1900s, this body of music still contains, at a conservative estimate, over 6,000 individual pieces – jigs, reels, and hornpipes in profusion and 100s of tunes for sets and half sets, polkas and other dances. (Breathnach, 1971)

Preservation of Irish treasury of music and dance Although eroded over time, since the beginning of the twentieth century, an impressive body of traditional Irish music exists, associated with dancing in the main.2 For this, acknowledgment must be made to performers/archival collectors who, stretching over many centuries, ensured the preservation of music and dance. Special credit must be given to those in the last decades and the early part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, respectively, who uniquely ensured the preservation of cultural traditions – on a voluntary, non-profit, basis. Siamsa Tíre (‘rural, musical, entertainment’) is Ireland’s national folk theatre, established in 1964. It began in a small Kerry village, Finogue, as an experiment to interest a group of young people in their local music and dance traditions. Its mission was to preserve and promote local traditional culture. Over nearly half a century, it has confronted the challenge of showcasing traditional culture within a modern idiom/environment. As a result of the organization’s growth the organization acquired a special purpose theatre, Teach Siamsa, over 30 years ago, in Tralee, Kerry’s capital. To celebrate this event, a tour of seven major US cities resulted in ‘rave’ reviews. The Sunday News, Delaware, said: ‘if “Siamsa” has anything to do with it, the heart and soul of Ireland will certainly live for ever . . . simplicity and innocence, not only charming, but true to the folk values it celebrates.’ The celebrated, and much feared, critic of the New York Times, Clive Barnes, wrote: ‘Absolutely superb . . . it made me want to catch the next plane to Ireland.’3 Creative industries There is increasing recognition of the growth significance of creative industries within national economies. The sector has significant potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property. As noted by Wolf (1999) ‘entertainment – not autos, not steel, not financial services – is fast becoming the driving wheel of the new economy’. Developments in CI provide a clear example of business survival in post-industrial economies (Hill, 1996). The sector has clearly followed and has been a dynamic part of societal change; especially in terms of facilitating the move from a production to knowledge-based socio-economy. In the case of Ireland, much has been achieved within CI as a result of the Arts Plan 1995–1997 (Arts Council, 1994), and other studies published subsequently. The Arts Plan featured positive national aspects, such as a strong indigenous imaginative tradition and the natural spontaneity of the Irish people, both of which provide encouragement for entrepreneurial development in the sector. However, in the ensuing debate on the way forward, several critical issues were overshadowed, such as the role of entrepreneurship, the need to foster a creative ‘Enterprise’ culture within the sector, and a ‘new business’ development system, through education and training appropriate to the arts. ‘Natural resource’ sectors, for example, particular creative elements such as music, dance, literature and film, among others, have been increasingly recognized as significant economic contributors. This is the case in Ireland, particularly, where the growth

30


in popularity of the creative sector was foreseen over a decade ago (Forte Report 1996). Globalization of communications networks and the rapid advance of digital technologies have propelled growth in the creative industries (Ó Cinnéide, 2002). The economic case is strong and the figures speak for themselves. Creative industries and entrepreneurship In researching the topic of entrepreneurship in CI, the current author recognized that not only are such industries and enterprise interrelated, but they can be highly effective partners. For example, the cultural sector can provide an attractive platform for entrepreneurship, while the arts are a dynamic. In no other industrial sector is there the dilemma of balancing the art and science of entrepreneurship (Jack and Anderson, 1998), more evident. This is where the need for appropriately tailored entrepreneurship course inputs is apparent. Additionally, finding financial support is critical in business venturing, particularly at the early stages, or the so-called ‘valley of death’ phase. The variety of industries that make up the creative sector are connected, either directly or indirectly, to the information, communication and entertainment sectors of the economy, and, as such, are typically very receptive to foreign collaborations. Hence, there is huge potential for exports, international partnerships and foreign direct investment (FDI). Finally, by their very nature, the creative industries are constantly absorbing new technologies, processes and management expertise in order to add value to the content of their outputs. As a result, there is a large business opportunity, in terms of sales, knowledge and technology transfer, to be exploited (Ó Cinnéide, 2002). Recognizing the above factors, over the last number of years there has been a concerted effort on the part of policy-makers to improve awareness and understanding of creativity. Governments have been keen to promote the sector through the establishment of specialist task forces, unique initiatives and official commissioned reports. Creative industries represent a vital, exciting and rapidly changing field of activity; one which is now recognized as a key growth sector in the knowledge based economy. The sector is a subset of knowledge-intensive industries which can be defined as ‘those activities that have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property’. By researching entrepreneurship in the arts and performing sectors we can gain, at first hand, invaluable insight into the critical importance of creativity as a feature in the entrepreneurial process. Recognition of its increasing importance and future growth prospects make CI an important topic for research at the international level (Ó Cinnéide and Henry, 2007). Adaptability of Irish music and dance Since the 1960s, there has been a remarkable renaissance of Irish traditional music. In particular, its impact was most apparent through being introduced to a world audience by groups like the Clancy Brothers (who performed in North America, particularly) and The Chieftains. There were many other acclaimed Irish instrumentalists and singers who performed globally in the process of this Celtic music revival. But where were the dancers? As it happened, they were there in abundance, not only in Ireland, but also in Britain, Australia and the USA. They had been perfecting their craft for years – going to competitions to bring home medals, trophies and the accolade of being world/regional


31

Irish dancing champions. But Irish dancing over the years, with a few honourable exceptions, had still remained virtually uninvolved in the performing arts and the broader entertainment industry – until the advent of Riverdance. Its success suggests that Irish popular culture is now so adaptable that it is possible to put together almost any number of contradictory influences and elements, as has happened with the show’s winning formula – a combination of Celtic twilight with Broadway pizazz. This is in line, as it happens, with the concept of Ireland’s poet laureate, W.B. Yeats’s, idea of a theatre which would combine drama, dance and music and had much in common with the American musical. Yet, Riverdance could not have worked without its underlying respect for Irish traditional music and dance, acknowledging that folk culture has a life and a truth of its own. The ability of enterprises in a small country like Ireland (with a population of less than 4 million) to take on the world’s ‘giants’ in the field of television and presentation of gala events is one of the kernel issues. Combined together, the original ‘players’ involved in Riverdance including the largest stakeholder, RTÉ, the Irish national broadcasting authority, Raidió Telefís Éireann, must be considered to be a ‘minnow’ in terms of world entertainment. So what lessons can be learned, in general terms, from analysing strategies developed by Riverdance, and later by its competitors, such as Lord of the Dance, in the search of international success?4 ‘The early bird’ is compelled to move quickly, and smartly! What has become known as Riverdance – The Original (that is the seven-minute interlude for the 1994 Eurovision Song Contest at the Point Theatre, Dublin) was brilliant in concept. Normally the interlude presentation had, traditionally, taken the format of a series of songs, often comprising the previous year’s winner in terms of both song and presenter. To have introduced another entertainment feature, dancing, was highly innovative and this choice can be ascribed to Moya Doherty, RTÉ’s producer of the Eurovision event, who had a long-standing interest in dance. It was a great example of innovation/international business/marketing. In addition, Riverdance has demonstrated how a cultural/traditional feature, Irish dancing, can be developed into an acceptable entertainment ‘product’. This had to be achieved without detracting from traditional values. In fact, a magical new formula was developed; adding to an attractive global imagery of Irish dance. Riverdance – the Show, and subsequent productions it spawned, such as Lord of the Dance, illustrate many important elements of entrepreneurship and business strategy: ●

●

Different marketing (theme/format) positions that the range of shows have adopted. The ability of Riverdance – The Show (The Show) to exploit the opportunities, post- Eurovision. Being ‘the original and the best’, it had the ability as ‘the early bird’ to develop its reputation internationally, (particularly through television exposure), before competitors arrived on the scene. Because of Ireland’s small size (with a population of less than 4 million) it was apparent, from day 1, that the success of Riverdance depended on acceptance in other countries. So this is where the ‘great Irish diaspora’, the entire Irish population worldwide, (estimated to number 70–80 million) has been crucial, since North America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have proven to be very favourable markets for the live shows and the audio visual spin-off products.

32 ●

●

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Spawning of rival shows has introduced a strong competitive element into Irish dance musicals. Far from being a passing fad (or mere flash in the pan, as it was dismissively viewed by some commentators on its stage debut in 1994–95), Riverdance has not only survived but has become a generic model for Irish cultural entertainment, resulting in the spawning of many competitors, principally Lord of the Dance. Inevitably, following the success of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance, many ‘me-too’ shows followed including Dancing on Dangerous Ground (developed by ex-Riverdance lead dancers, Jean Butler and Colin Dunne), Spirit of the Dance (UK based), Shelallion (Scottish based) and Gael Force (Australian in origin). Competition brings out the best; commitment, ingenuity and creative talents. Spawning of rival shows has introduced a strong competitive edge into Irish dance, since the emergence of ‘me-toos’ encourages more commitment, ingenuity and creative talents!

Just as Guinness has been highly successful in marketing ‘Irishness’ as part of its brand strategy by emphasizing the unique characteristics of the Irish pub, traditional music, and so on, the current cultural renaissance has the capacity to showcase Ireland to an ever increasing global audience. Additionally, the new cultural dynamics are capable of uplifting both self-confidence and national confidence with beneficial consequences for entrepreneurship and economic development, generally, in Ireland, Riverdance can be seen as a role model for Irish business venturing and an inspiration for indigenous entrepreneurship. The Show has shown the world that a ‘can do’ philosophy undoubtedly prevails in Ireland which contributed to the economic miracle, the so-called ‘Celtic Tiger’. The ‘Riverdance industry’ indicates how new enterprises can be spawned from existing successful businesses due to a number of driving forces – including personal striving for independence, control, the need for self-achievement (n-Ach), and the competitive spirit to emulate the success of the ‘initiator’ enterprise. It is interesting to note, here, Michael Flatley’s claims to ‘intellectual property’ (in regard to choreography, for instance) and desire for control over future developments of Riverdance. These two issues have been accepted, generally, as the precipitating factors that led, first, to his dismissal by Abhann Productions, promoters of Riverdance, and later, to his conceptualization of a rival theatrical production, leading to head-to-head competition between the two Irish dance shows. A significant feature is that once they had developed the idea of expanding the sevenminute Eurovision presentation into a full-length theatrical show, the Irish originators maintained as much control as possible over their intellectual property rights and management control of the show. They succeeded in contracting in expertise in terms of theatrical production, worldwide operations and logistics, finance and marketing. All of this has enabled to up to four ‘companies’ of dancers and musicians to tour the globe, simultaneously. You have to admire the enterprise shown by two individuals, Moya Doherty and John McColgan (Moya’s husband) who had no previous experience of live theatre production. What they have done in achieving success by competing in the global marketplace of entertainment is very exciting. It shows that even from a small country with limited previous experience and comparatively low budgets, it is possible to take on the world’s ‘giants’ in the homes of entertainment like New York and London.


33

Development of creative industries’ cases It is essential that student involvement/assessment procedures should satisfy several criteria, one of which must be integration of the student learning process. Various methods of assessment are available. The case method, of course, is one of these options. Cases offer a number of advantages as a vehicle for assessment, for example, a case can be selected or specially written to incorporate the desired level of difficulty that the syllabus indicates. In particular, cases can focus on topical issues where there are no ‘right’ answers. The most effective case studies are those which inspire students to think and develop opinions creatively. The current author has spent several decades developing case studies in an attempt to record entrepreneurship trends and document the major transformation that has taken place within the indigenous Irish business domain. This involved scanning across conventional industrial, technological, commercial and natural resource sectors, in particular. However, CI soon attracted attention with the emergence in Ireland of international entertainers such as U2, The Chieftains and The Corrs. Then Riverdance made its debut. In particular, continuous personal research has been conducted on the process by which Riverdance was developed as an enterprise from a simple basic concept and its formulation as The Show which has achieved such global acclaim. It is apparent a cultural renaissance, assisted to a significant degree by the advent of Riverdance, has had the capacity to showcase Ireland to an ever increasing global audience. Additionally, the new cultural dynamics are capable of uplifting both selfconfidence and national confidence with beneficial consequences for entrepreneurship and economic development generally in Ireland. This will help to ensure that the ‘Celtic Tiger’ has not become the short-term miracle that some economists predicted. Consequently, a decade and a half ago, the author initiated a series of new cases relating to the creative industries sector. The initial version of the Riverdance case (one might call it ‘the prototype case’), was written in early 1995 before the launch of Riverdance – The Show. It was tested with a selection of groups, and then successfully used in both classroom and workshop sessions, with ongoing alterations in the text as Riverdance followed its natural course – wending its way, as it were, onto the world’s stages. After this initial foray into theatre-land, composition of two full-length cases were undertaken on the Irish dance and music shows, Riverdance and Lord of the Dance. The objective was to highlight the innovatory features of these enterprises and to provide a discussion platform for considering managerial aspects of devising and developing internationally successful stage shows from an indigenous Irish base. In addition to the creativity aspect, it was decided to concentrate on further developing the Riverdance story, as a case subject. This was because of its proven attractiveness to different educational groups, since the world of entertainment, in particular, caters for all age groups, income groups, personal preferences, and so on. By analysing the advent and ongoing development of Riverdance and the follow-on show, Lord of the Dance, it is believed that invaluable insights can be gained into the creative entrepreneurial process. This includes how innovative entrepreneurs work; the particular barriers they face; their particular characteristics and their development needs.5 The challenging world of show business One of the kernel issues illustrated by Riverdance and Lord of the Dance concerns the challenges facing television producers and aspirant theatrical show promoters from a

34


small country like Ireland, in taking on the world’s entertainment giants in transforming a television presentation into a stage extravaganza. What have been called other ‘spin-off’ ventures, have shown the capability of Irish producers, directors and ‘angels’ (theatrical investors/venture capitalists) to stage shows at major venues worldwide, with little previous experience of ‘theatreland’ and arts management. This consideration also extends, of course, to the commercialization of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance derivatives, for example, videos, audios, dedicated merchandise. A major challenge facing the Riverdance promoters was how best to network further into the ‘great Irish diaspora’. This consists of 70–80 million people who claim Irish descent/affinity, mostly in the English speaking world, but also includes countries like Argentina. Inevitably, then, the question arises: how can Riverdance best be developed further? Should this be attempted through current market penetration, geographic market expansion, further new product development, or other strategic options? In general, the success of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance provokes questions on the application of entrepreneurial principles to cultural and art forms, whether this is for profit or otherwise. The implications of its success transcend Ireland. Many other nations seek to preserve and develop unique aspects of their cultures. In particular, they make efforts to introduce (perhaps even to invent) new indigenous forms of the performing arts that are features of their cultures. For such countries, Riverdance may become the model. Entrepreneurship within the entertainment industry A study of the evolution and ongoing development of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance can provide an interesting focus for discussing both entrepreneurship and innovation within CI. In addition to providing a basis for considering many of the features at play in conceiving and initiating a commercial start-up business (an innovatory stage show), it gives an opportunity, also, to study the special factors which encourage ‘enterprise’ and creative initiatives within the public domain. The latter intrapreneurial aspect arises because the original conceptualisation of the artistic performance arose from the staging of the Eurovision Song Contest by RTÉ, the Irish public broadcasting authority. The 1994 Eurovision Contest provided the canvas, as it were, from which Riverdance could emerge as an original artistic creation. The rationale for Riverdance’s evolution can be explored for parallels with the genesis of ‘innovatory ideas’ that have led to successful introduction of ‘new products’ in the conventional business world. In developing a series of case studies relating to dance/music, the author felt it would be interesting to consider to what degree have creative/management skills, as distinct from entrepreneurial flair, been employed in the development of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance. It was believed, also, a wide-ranging discussion could be provoked by the question: ‘Entrepreneurship in the arts: is entrepreneurship or art the key?’ (where ‘art’ might be considered a surrogate for artistic talent or creativity). Case discussion could deal with the moral dilemma faced by the arts/culture sector in walking the figurative ‘tightrope’, whereby the maximum commercial success sought for new ‘products’ must not be at the expense demeaning the entertainment sector by inappropriate over-exploitation. The question can be posed on how best to capitalize on the initial impact of Riverdance to ensure it benefits Ireland’s image abroad in terms of


35

international business (in whatever categories the case discussants consider most appropriate, for example, tourism). The issue of prospective, longer-term development of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance raises issues such as whether there might be set limits to the promoters’ innovation capabilities. Case discussants could be encouraged to assess, within the entertainment field, to what degree have creative ability and management skills, as distinct from entrepreneurial flair, played their part in the development of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance? A wide-ranging discussion could be provoked by questioning the distinctive, yet highly interactive, roles of the producer, director, composer, choreographer and lead performers in a theatrical venture presentation such as ‘Riverdance – The Show’. A feature that might be interpolated from details in the Riverdance case is the ‘free’ market research that resulted from the public acclaim for the brilliant formulation of music and dance for the interlude showpiece at Eurovision 1994 – a song contest! Post-Eurovision, time and time again, it was revealed that the showcasing of traditional Irish music and dance (within a modern idiom), had wide popular appeal. In this regard, it is interesting that Fletcher (1999) comments on the serious difficulties normally encountered in undertaking research to quantify the market potential for most projects within the creative industries sector. Riverdance’s ability to inspire creativity and innovation Some of the traits that can be ascribed to Riverdance are: ● ● ● ● ●

individuality innovation creativity a unique history and culture, and the quirky and the unexpected.

Picture how powerful these values would be if they were to underpin Ireland’s endeavours in food, tourism, electronics and culture. Just imagine what it would be like trying to sell an Irish cheese if, like the French, we had built and communicated in advance a real, strong identity for food. Quirkiness, individuality and uniqueness are good qualities here. Creativity and individuality are central to such a know-how and knowledge-based business, and this applies particularly to modern Ireland. Look at how Guinness has broken down the aspects of the identity of Ireland associated with the Irish pub culture, identifying its core values clearly and rebuilding them profitably, and in 2009 celebrating, worldwide, its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary! In general, the success of Riverdance provokes questions on the application of entrepreneurial principles to cultural and art forms, whether this be for profit or otherwise. The implications of its success transcend Ireland. Many other nations seek to preserve and develop unique aspects of their cultures. In particular, they make efforts to introduce (perhaps even to invent) new indigenous forms of the performing arts that are features of their cultures. The underlying issue remains, however, how to optimize the commercial success of new cultural ‘products’ without harming by mass market exploitation both the artistic and cultural values that one seeks to preserve and promote.

36


Lord of the Dance versus Riverdance: analogy with Pepsi versus Coke and Avis versus Hertz? Michael Flatley’s claims to ‘intellectual property’ (in regard to choreography, for instance) and his desire for control over future developments of Riverdance seem to have been accepted, generally, as two of the precipitating factors that led to his dismissal by the promoters of Riverdance. This raises the question of how best to manage creativity. When taken in tandem with the critical differences between producing ‘television spectaculars’ and presenting shows ‘on stage’, consideration of the particular challenge of managing creativity illustrates the difficulties of controlling a runaway theatrical success like Riverdance and, most likely, explains the abrupt ending of Michael Flatley’s contract. The scenario that evolved so divisively between Flatley and the Riverdance principals provide ample discussion points on management features such as international business strategy, including the adoption of options that existed for Lord of the Dance to be positioned, competitively, vis-à-vis Riverdance. As it happened, Flatley’s new show was devised, developed and on the world’s stage within a year of his dismissal – a remarkable feat! Very quickly, he had developed merchandising spin-offs (such as its audio and video products). His dynamic new show and the verve with which it gained popularity across many continents introduced a remarkable competitive component into the world of ‘dance musicals’, This invites comparisons with the strategies developed in brand wars such as Pepsi versus Coke and Avis versus Hertz (see Appendix 3.1). It is interesting that one of the main strategies developed in launching Flatley’s new venture was to offer comparatively short runs of Lord of the Dance in quick succession in Dublin, major cities in the UK like London, Liverpool and Manchester, while being ahead of Riverdance in Australia and New Zealand. In so doing, he quickly sought maximum exposure by extensive fanfaring of successive opening in UK cities and in the Antipodes. This approach can be compared with the prolonged stagings of Riverdance in both Irish and British capitals (with the American opening not occurring until over a year later). It appears as if the strategy behind Lord of the Dance was to maximize publicity for the show, worldwide, in parallel with the video launch in October 1996. In attempting to position his new show against the stature of Riverdance, Flatley engaged in an extensive series of press conferences, made frequent appearances on radio and television programmes, particularly ‘breakfast television’, chat shows, and so on, while a continuing stream of press releases and informational items were released to the media. Student-oriented case studies: examples of use of the case method in end-of-term examinations The current author was assigned the task of lecturing to/assessing a large class of students on the Graduate Diploma programme at the University of Limerick (Ó Cinnéide, 1997). The course related to marketing policy/strategy, but with aspirations to developing the theme of ‘New Ventures’ as far as possible. The numbers registered far exceeded, by more than four fold, the expected class size. As a result, the planned interactive format of the sessions with the students had to be radically modified. Instead of the proposed case studies approach, the format incorporated referral at class sessions to case histories


37

of the marketing activities and entrepreneurial flair of over a dozen Irish business organizations. As a result, the class sessions became a mixture of traditional ‘lecturing to’/case referencing, with significant distribution of brief business histories. This lack of potential individual interaction was a worrying feature in planning the end-of-term examination, since it had been agreed that it would encompass 100 per cent of the students’ term assessment. As a result, it was decided to assess the class on both case and theory grounds, with a special sympathetic option/leeway for overseas students who did not feel at home with analysing the particular Irish case situations. The assessment process The examination paper was comprised of Part 1 (40 per cent), basically related to cases, and Part 2 (60 per cent), ‘traditional’ essay-style theory questions. Before the Christmas break, two brief cases were distributed: a special ‘Vision 2020’ study (six pages) and a synopsized version (two pages), of Riverdance – The Phenomenon, the lecturer’s initial version of a case study on the new Irish stage production, Riverdance – The Show. The students were notified that, at the examination, they should choose between these. At the final class session, also, there was a video showing of the seven-minute Eurovision interlude piece of Riverdance. In January 1996, 114 graduate students underwent a ‘sit-down’ examination, over two-and-a-half hours, representing 100 per cent of the semester’s marks, as described, above. Five distinct streams of students (see numbers in parentheses), had pursued the course: management (61), tourism (25), entrepreneurship (15), recreation management (10) and technical communication (3). In the out-turn, 81 students (71 per cent) answered on Riverdance; 29 selected ‘Vision 2020’ (25 per cent), while 4 (4 per cent) elected to forgo answering either case. It was apparent that two student streams, ‘Tourism’ and ‘Entrepreneurship’ had participated most strongly in answering on Riverdance, with 24 (96 per cent) of the former and 13 (87 per cent) of the latter choosing the show business topic. It was quite apparent that most of the students, overall, had personal knowledge of Riverdance and, to judge from the remarkable quality of their answers, they had exceptional rapport with the show. Their ‘personalized’ comments and ideas were quite exceptional – to the extent that the author received extremely useful hints as to how the subsequent case study on Riverdance (Ó Cinnéide, 1995) could be enhanced before its submission to the European Case Clearing House at Cranfield, UK! The average marks attained on the Riverdance assessment question were among the highest this author has encountered in nearly 30 years of teaching and examining on courses. The arithmetic means of marks allotted to the ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘tourism’ cohorts were 68 per cent and 65 per cent, respectively, with an overall class average of 63 per cent. Perhaps this highly exceptional class performance can be ascribed to the popularity of Riverdance – The Show in Ireland at that particular time, and to it being seen on television or video by most students on several occasions prior to their examination. Since it was broadcast on a number of television channels over that particular Christmas and New Year, the students had several options of ‘mixing business with pleasure’ in advance of their assessment! It is important to stress that students received no prior notification of the examination paper’s details.

38


Summary of outcomes of experimentation using Riverdance and Lord of the Dance cases in examinations Together with this initial pilot experimentation in 1995–96, the author has used the Riverdance and Lord of the Dance cases in end of year examinations on nine occasions, in four subsequent academic years, encompassing three Irish campuses. Altogether, 330 students were involved, comprised of 120 undergraduates and 210 graduate students. The examinations took place in Limerick and at two other Irish university campuses in Dublin, at each of which this author had course assignments for periods of two years. When provided with optional ‘case’ and ‘theory’ questions, just under 80 per cent of students chose the former. The personalized content of their scripts and the enthusiastic nature of the answering on features of the two Irish dance/music shows became very apparent. Analysis of the examination results established the overall marks recorded on case answering by the nine cohorts to be in the range 60–65 per cent, among the highest ever personally encountered (Ó Cinnéide, 2006). It is believed that the use of the cases showed that if topics are sufficiently interesting, attention-directing and well understood, a high level of ‘participative learning’ can be achieved. By offering topics with which students can empathize (and to which they can respond with enthusiasm), the talent that the younger generation has in forcefully expressing themselves can be unleashed. It is believed that choosing instances of topical, innovative enterprises from the creative industries, such as the show business sector, very much helped the examinees to be very ‘personalized’ when engaged in the given assignments. Advantages of using Riverdance and Lord of the Dance cases (especially in examinations!) During term, to a great extent, large classes (due to their size and the group impersonality effect) inhibit individual student contributions. However, written examinations, if appropriately formulated to seek critical analyses and examinees’ perspectives on issues/ideas, can provide a unique forum for students to express/actualize themselves, as occurred in the marketing policy/strategy assessment, described above. If the appropriate stimulatory environment and examination structure can be devised, it is possible to capture the students’ individual perceptions, feelings and personal style of thinking and expression in writing. It is believed that, via the case method, you can establish a ‘one-to-one’ rapport between lecturer and student – through the dreaded, and much maligned, examination script! It is pleasing, therefore, to report that, whenever employed, the Riverdance and Lord of the Dance cases proved especially effective in achieving an extremely high level of personal commitment from students – whether in the classroom or examination hall!6 Examples of prospective assignment topics are included in Appendix 3.2. Conclusion This chapter has attempted to provide insights into approaches for conceptualizing and producing case studies that will be appropriate for inclusion in educational and training programmes. In particular, an approach to developing ‘entertaining’ cases from the creative industries sector has been detailed, with observations on the appropriateness of


39

the case method for student assessment, especially in ‘sit down’ assignments. By analysing the advent and ongoing development of Riverdance and the follow-on show, Lord of the Dance, it is believed that invaluable insights can be gained by case participants into the creative entrepreneurial process (Ó Cinnéide, 2005). This includes how innovative entrepreneurs work, the particular barriers they face, their special characteristics and their development needs. It is believed that interesting conclusions can be drawn from the primary research which was undertaken with nine cohorts, totalling over 320 students, (undergraduate/ graduate, spread over three university campuses). Not only did the results indicate the high effectiveness of the case assessment process in examination terms but, also, a strong response from students on the attractiveness of the creative industries as a sector to examine and explore for both entrepreneurship and innovation. Combined together, the original ‘players’ involved in Riverdance including the largest stakeholder, RTÉ, must be considered to be a ‘minnow’ in terms of world entertainment. Riverdance and Lord of the Dance succeeded in taking on the ‘show business establishment’s’ highly promoted theatrical productions in London’s West End and on Broadway! So what lessons can be learned from analysing strategies developed by the two shows in their search for international success? Finally, involvement in following the fortunes of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ on the world’s theatrical stages has led to the largest case study that, personally, has ever been attempted, the book, Riverdance – The Phenomenon (Ó Cinnéide, 2002)! En route, exploring the fascinating and ever challenging world of entertainment and CI, generally, through developing a series of cases concerning the sector, has reinforced the author’s belief, in the old theatrical show adage, ‘There’s no business like show business’. Notes 1. In recent years its economic performance (with the consistently highest gross domestic product (GDP) within the European Union), has earned Ireland the title of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ in financial and management media. 2. Personal research undertaken on the interconnection between Irish music and dance was enlightening. The ‘Dance’ component of Irish music has been estimated to be in the range 50–60 per cent (Ó Cinnéide, 2002). 3. Perhaps then, if the Irish public (and theatre critics!) had remembered these glowing US critiques, they might not have been so thunderstruck by a certain Irish music and dance formulation that made its debut in the Point Theatre, Dublin in April 1994 (see later)! 4. After the advent of Riverdance and its rival, Lord of the Dance, registrations in Irish dancing schools more than doubled. One of the spin-offs from this has been the emergence of a veritable industry serving the schools’ particular needs and their aspirant Riverdancers! As Brennan (1999) has commented: ‘Irish dance is now synonymous with glamour and is a passport to fame. This lesson is not lost on the legions of young dancers and their families.’ 5. With respect to the entrepreneurial aspects of CI, it is appropriate to point out here that the first rigorous definition and analysis of entrepreneurial activity has been ascribed to the economist Richard Cantillon (circa 1690–1734) whose writings were included in his Essai sur le Nature de Commerce General, published posthumously in 1755. Suffice it to say that he was an Irishman! 6. Both show business cases, Riverdance and Lord of the Dance, can be used in multiple situations, but are particularly envisaged as being adopted on degree ‘capstone’ courses and on executive programmes that deal with the following subjects: entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, creativity, new product development, enterprise development, strategy, business policy and international marketing.

References Arts Council (1994), The Arts Plan, 1995–1997, Dublin: Criterion Press. Beresford, P. (ed.) (2009), The Sunday Times Rich List, 2009, 26 April.

40


Bradley, F. and J. Kennelly (2008), Innovation, Learning and Sense of Place in a Globalising Ireland, Dublin: Blackhall Publishing. Breathnach, B. (1971), Folk Music and Dances of Ireland, Cork: Mercier Press. Brennan, H. (1999), The Story of Irish Dance, Dingle, Co. Kerry: Mt. Eagle. Cantillon, R. (1755), Essai sur le Nature de Commerce General. Carr, J. (1805), Stranger in Ireland, quoted in Breathnach, B. (1971), Folk Music and Dances of Ireland, Cork: Mercier Press. Easton, G. (1982), Learning from Case Studies, London: Prentice Hall. Fletcher, W. (1999), Tantrums and Talent: How to Get the Best from Creative People, London: World Advertising Research Centre. Forte Report on Music (1996), Access All Areas: Irish Music – an International Industry. Report to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Dublin: Stationery Office. Halton, A. (ed.) (1892), Re Arthur Young’s ‘A tour in Ireland, 1776–1779’, London: Bell. Head, R. (1674), The Western Wonder, quoted in Breathnach, B. (1971), Folk Music and Dances of Ireland, Cork: Mercier Press. Hill, B. (1996), Income Statistics for the Agricultural Household sector, proceedings of the Eurostar seminar, Luxembourg, 10–11 January. Jack, S. and A. Anderson (1998), Entrepreneurship Education within the Condition of Entreprenology, proceedings of the conference on Enterprise and Learning, Aberdeen. Lee, J. (1989), Ireland 1912–1985: Politics and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leenders, M. and J. Erskine (1989), Case Research: The Case Writing Process, 3rd edn, London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario. Ó Cinnéide, B. (1995), ‘Riverdance’ case study, Cranfield, UK, European Case Clearing House. Ó Cinnéide, B. (1997), ‘The role and effectiveness of case studies: student performance in case study vs “theory” examinations’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21 (1), 3–13. Ó Cinnéide, B. (2002), Riverdance – The Phenomenon, Dublin: Blackhall. Ó Cinnéide, B. (2005), ‘Creative entrepreneurship in the arts: transforming old into “new” – Irish dance and music test cases such as Riverdance and Lord of the Dance’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, special issue, August. Ó Cinnéide, B. (2006), ‘Developing and testing student oriented case studies. The production process and classroom/examination experiences with “entertaining” topics’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 30 (5), 349–64. Ó Cinnéide, B. and C. Henry (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship features of creative industries: the Irish music and dance sector’, in C. Henry (ed.), Entrepreneurship in the Creative Industries – an International Perspective, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Porter, M.E, (1998), ‘Clusters and the new economics of competition’, Harvard Business Review, Nov–Dec., pp. 77–90. Richardson, B., L. Montanheiro and B. Ó Cinnéide (eds) (1995), How to Research, Write, Teach and Publish Management Case Studies, Sheffield: PAVIC Publications, Sheffield Business School. Wolf, M. (1999), The Entertainment Economy, London: Penguin.


41

Appendix 3.1: financial success of Riverdance and Lord of the Dance Significant elements of international business strategy were employed by Lord of the Dance to position the show competitively with Riverdance through extensive merchandising. This involved novel spin-offs such as audio and video products, thereby introducing an interesting competitive edge into the world of entertainment. In competitive terms, the rivalry between Riverdance and Lord of the Dance has been compared with the well-known multinational adversarial marketing campaigns, Hertz versus Avis and Coca-Cola versus Pepsi. The question might be posed: ‘Can Riverdance be likened to Hertz and Coke (No. 1s) and Lord of the Dance to Avis and Pepsi?’ Or vice versa? In attempting to resolve this conundrum, after a decade and a half, it is interesting to review financial information on the wealth of the two shows’ originators cum principals, in terms of ongoing show business activity and financial success. The current author has undertaken the following analyses based on information and relevant financial data published in the Sunday Times Rich List (Beresford, 2009). This analysis of wealth within the UK and Ireland provides a unique information base for analysing the mixed fortunes of individuals engaged in business, and can provide some interesting insights into the performance of markets and the vagaries of those engaged in them. The Sunday Times Rich List, 2009 contained interesting background information on show business principals’ lifestyles and current level of engagement with the sector. For example, after Riverdance’s farewell UK tour in 2008, Doherty and McColgan sought new markets in China and Dubai. The Sunday Times indicated that among Michael Flatley’s assets, the estimated value of the Lord of the Dance brand, held through Unicorn Entertainment, has been conservatively estimated at £42 million (47 million euros), with a major part of his personal assets associated with the Warren Investment fund. Although off the stage for several years, Flatley has reignited his career by co-hosting Superstars of Dance, the NBC hit show in the USA. The following analysis relates to 2009 (with 2008 data in parentheses). The wealth assessed for Doherty and McColgan, the Riverdance partners, was 74 million euros (80 million euros), crediting them to be 107 (122) in terms of the richest Irish listed. Their wealth, as a couple, placed them at 853 (969) in the UK listing, with Moya Doherty achieving 88 in the UK wealthiest women’s rankings. In spite of the global downturn in 2008–09, these financial standings represented considerably improved comparative evaluations for the couple in both UK and Ireland rankings vis-à-vis 2008. Meanwhile, Flatley was credited with wealth of 273 million euros (372 million euros) and was ranked 27 (29) in Ireland’s ‘Top 250’ richest. He was placed 234 (240) in the UK’s wealthiest list. He was credited with this slightly improved position despite losing an estimated 34 per cent decline in his wealth – others ranked ahead of him lost more proportionately within the year! This analysis shows that Flatley has by far exceeded the Riverdance couple’s ranking in both 2008 and 2009. His accumulated wealth, 273 million euros was 3.7 times the level of the Riverdance partners’ amount, 74 million euros. One conclusion might be that the old adage, ‘the early bird catches the worm’ does not apply in this case! So, on purely a wealth basis, Flatley can be said to compare with Hertz and Coke (No. 1s), while Doherty and McColgan could be assigned the No. 2 position, like Avis and Pepsi! In spite of its No. 2 ‘wealth generation’ position, Riverdance’s undeniable main achievement has been its originality and innovative flair in conceptualizing a dramatic

42


new Irish dance and music extravaganza with unique ability in taking on entertainment industry giants on their home ground, for example, in Broadway and London. The cultural renaissance embracing Irish traditional music and dance has not just been the result of a sudden explosion of interest following the Eurovision Song Contest performance in 1994. Rather, Riverdance came at a time when there was an upsurge in the indigenous performing arts and entertainment. This created the infrastructure of performers, producers and audiences both in Ireland and within the ‘Irish diaspora’, which made possible the electrifying 1994 television presentation, with its ability to go on further to major international successes. Now, with cultural renaissance palpable in so many different sectors, Ireland has the capacity to showcase itself to an ever increasing global audience. Additionally, the new dynamics are capable of uplifting both self-confidence and national confidence, with beneficial consequences for entrepreneurship and economic development, generally. Appendix 3.2: possible discussion topics on Riverdance The following points could provide useful stimulation for case discussion: 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

‘It all starts with a good idea. The most important thing is the first step – the longest journey starts with the first stride.’ Discuss. Consider the special features that apply to live television presentations, particularly if they are premiere events. Discuss the special incidence of ‘mega’ or ‘gala’ cultural broadcasts, for example, when Italia 90 (World Cup final in Rome) spawned ‘The Three Tenors’, and the relevance to Riverdance. The importance of the strong pull of natural ‘roots’ which leads to commitment of entrepreneurial talents and energies for developing an internationally appealing image of the cultural distinctiveness of your own culture. Doherty and Colgan had to contend was ‘the problem of controlling a runaway success’ and how best ‘to catch a tiger by the tail’? In analyses of Riverdance achievements and prescriptions for the future, emphasis must be laid on the ability of the principals involved to cope and to keep level heads while planning long-term strategy. To what extent do the cases show that, in spite of many constraints, it is possible for committed individuals to achieve success in business by means of particular talents/ skills, strength of character, leadership style, and so on? For the longer term, there are many options. Perhaps a smaller, scaled down, show making it easier to spread the load, or replications of The Show, that is, ‘cloning’, as has been done, universally, with stage successes like Les Miserables, Cats, Disney on Ice, and so on. Then there are other spin-offs to be looked at and evaluated, such as extended marketing of Riverdance-based merchandise. Also, the potential for using the show and the Riverdance brand as a motivating force for promoting Ireland culturally, touristically, economically, and so on.

4

Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise: entrepreneurs in education Per Blenker and Poul Rind Christensen

Background Over the years a huge number of contributions have asked: can entrepreneurship be taught (Fiet, 2000; Jack and Anderson, 1999; Sexton and Upton, 1987)? We have without a doubt reached a point of general recognition that it can. However, we need to innovate curriculum as well as didactics in order to pave the way for a stronger contribution from university graduates to the benefit of the entrepreneurial society. The inclusion of entrepreneurs as teachers in the entrepreneurship curriculum is widely recognized to be of core value to learning for entrepreneurship. In a new export panel report from the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General (2008, p. 31), it is thus stated: As regards the current state of play in European higher education, experts believe that entrepreneurs and business practitioners are in general involved in the teaching, but their presence needs to be increased. Also, there are few examples of entrepreneurial practitioners engaged in the full curricula experience. Most frequently, they are only engaged in short presentations to students (e.g. as testimonials or guest lecturers) or as judges in competitions.

Another report (NIRAS Consultants, FORA, ECON Pöyry 2008) made for the European Commission in 2008 concludes along the same line. It stated that ‘academic staff should have personal entrepreneurship experience to fully appreciate and fully communicate the benefits and obstacles of entrepreneurial activities’. However, it is only rarely the case that academic staff have this. As a possible solution to the problem, the same analysis says that ‘the use of external guest lecturers and practitioners in entrepreneurship education is widespread’ (ibid., pp. 171–2). Yet, the use of entrepreneurs in the classroom is typically occasional and short termed (Katz, 1995). These few statements indicate that entrepreneurs are assumed to have hands-on expertise that is indispensable when it comes to educating students in the field of entrepreneurship. An old Danish phrase seems to guide the wisdom: it is one thing to navigate, another to sail the ship. However, the purpose of including practical entrepreneurs as educators is seldom discussed. The many different ways in which entrepreneurs may be included in the curriculum is also seldom discussed. Finally, as far as we know, the critical issues and pitfalls associated with the inclusion of entrepreneurs in the curriculum are never discussed. The aim of this chapter is to reflect on the different aspects of entrepreneurial expertise and relate the conception of entrepreneurial expertise to the role entrepreneurs play and the way entrepreneurs are included in entrepreneurship educations.

43

44


1. The entrepreneurial expertise In her writings on entrepreneurial expertise, Sarasvathy (2008) bases her studies on the lengthy cognitive studies on expertise by Herbert Simon and others. She observes that the elements of expertise seem to ‘be organized into a set of domain specific heuristics, which can thereafter be either embodied in expert systems or used as testable and teachable decision-making and problem-solving techniques’ (ibid., p. 13). The point made is that the concept of entrepreneurial expertise combines different types of knowledge embedded with the entrepreneur rather than the firm. The firm is seen as an instrument to the entrepreneurs’ success, although the success of the entrepreneur does not necessarily guarantee the success of the firm. In the finding by Sarasvathy, entrepreneurial expertise is basically characterized by two traits. It consists of ‘tacitfied’ knowledge of a non-linear nature and it follows a rationale which is distinct from what – in short – might be labelled managerial logic. While managerial logic is causal, entrepreneurial logic is, in the conceptualization of Sarasvathy, labelled effectual (ibid., p. 17). So, another way of putting it is, the effectual reasoning which characterizes entrepreneurial expertise is the opposite of the reasoning associated with strategic planning. Entrepreneurial experts do not perceive the future as being foreseeable and independent of individual action, rather they view it as part of their area of action. Therefore they can gradually influence it. However, what is at stake is an expansion of the concept of reasoning to include the meaning of implicit, in action and also in relating to others’ work space and perceptions. For our purpose, that is, the investigation of how entrepreneurial expertise may enrich teaching in entrepreneurship, it may be enough to specify that causal reasoning is a goal– means way of reasoning, with no, or only few, intermediate accounts, that is, a linear and stringed reasoning. Causal and linear reasoning is especially useful, for example, to monitor machine-like systems in a scientific management way. This reasoning, however, does not suffice in entrepreneurial situations, where reasoning needs to be multi-stringed and has to be applied in ‘unknown waters’, where experience-based and innovative judgements are needed. In such cases, the effectual reasoning of the expert entrepreneur involving action and relating to others’ circumferences is of much more use. The implications for the inclusion of entrepreneurs in teaching are manifold. A basic observation is that business managers per se do not automatically supply the type of expertise needed to support and enrich the learning process in the curriculum of entrepreneurship. Another observation is that the type of entrepreneurial expertise needed differs for each stage of the entrepreneurial venturing process. If early stages of opportunity creation and business foundation are in focus, the needed expertise tends to be close to the effectual logic in its pure form, while in later stages, where matters of consolidation and management routines gain importance, the expertise needed tends to be of a more mixed nature. 2. Framing the roles However, consideration of entrepreneurial expertise also needs to be influenced by the role assigned to the entrepreneur in the entrepreneurship learning agenda. A mainstream view is that entrepreneurs should be included in the curriculum in order to demonstrate best practice from real-life entrepreneurship. But, as demonstrated by Gartner and Baker (2008), the early phases of opportunity recognition are fuelled by the beliefs, values and,

Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise

45

not least, the imagination of the individual entrepreneur, thus leaving room for many best practices. In order to avoid storytelling and to extract value from individual entrepreneurs of the Frank Sinatra type – ‘I did it my way’ – a clear didactical instruction is needed. This role assigned to the entrepreneur is one way: to gain access to the value added which is generated by his or her participation. In the following we illustrate the purposes of the involvement of entrepreneurs in entrepreneurship education, the general variety of didactical approaches to entrepreneurship education and discuss how the roles of the involved actors in entrepreneurship education unfold under different didactical circumstances. 3. A variety of roles and didactical approaches Entrepreneurs may be included in entrepreneurship education for several purposes. We demonstrate five different, but typical, roles the entrepreneur may be invited to partake in. We begin with simple roles and move gradually towards more complicated roles. 1.

2.

An often observed mode is when the entrepreneur is invited to a class in order to talk about his or her firm and personal experiences as an entrepreneur: motives for starting the venture; experiences from the process, risk perceptions, acquisition of capital and the drawing of a business plan may be covered. The role of the entrepreneur in the educational context is then simply to act as a live case to illustrate and bring realism to the theory lessons provided. In this case the teaching would typically be based on theory, centred on the teacher who aims to transfer theoretical understanding to the students. In such cases the entrepreneur performs as a guest speaker invited to the auditorium. The teacher could also bring the class to visit the entrepreneur at his or her company in order to make the textbook-based knowledge more palpable and bridge theoretical abstract knowledge with context-specific entrepreneurial features. The role of the entrepreneur in class is of an appreciative nature (Nelson and Winter, 1982) that explains how academic perceptions of entrepreneurial dynamics and behaviour may differ in practice. Theories founded on the specialized business school logic of management and strategy may be contrasted with the practice of the visiting entrepreneur. One of the critical problems encountered is the possible retrospective adjustments made by the entrepreneur in his or her storytelling. Another is the willingness of the entrepreneur to share his or her failures and successes with the students in an open-minded fashion. Another frequent way of including the entrepreneur is to use him or her as a role model. The aim is to select successful entrepreneurs; business entrepreneurs or social entrepreneurs. The important issue is then to select entrepreneurs with a record; credibility and integrity that students are expected to think highly of. Often the everyday life of a student is quite different from that of the entrepreneurial community and students have ideals and role models that are useful for and relate to the particular student life they live. They may thus have difficulty seeing themselves or their career path in relation to that of the entrepreneur. The educators thus face the challenge of ‘addressing a diversity of student groups, from different cultural backgrounds, by providing examples and role models that relate to their contexts’ (European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008, p. 23). In this situation, an entrepreneur appearing

46

3.

4.

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education in the classroom, can personify different values and in this way serve as a role model. The entrepreneur’s role can be seen as relating the training in entrepreneurship with entrepreneurial attitudes and aspirations. The entrepreneur as a role model can thus influence students’ perceptions of whether or not entrepreneurship is a desirable career choice for them. In the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) report of 2008 it is argued that ‘Entrepreneurial attitudes . . . can be influenced by whether people know anyone who has started a business recently’ (GEM, 2008, p. 10). However entrepreneurial role models may be of a more or less temporal nature. In late November 2008 the Danish enterprise IT-Factory, chief executive officer (CEO) Stein Bagger, was awarded Entrepreneur of the Year in Denmark. On the very same day Stein Bagger disappeared and one of the largest cases of fraud and deception in Denmark was revealed. The logic demonstrated by the invited role model may also invite the students to dominant causal reasoning. Another, yet less observed, way of including entrepreneurs in the curriculum is by creating situated learning. The entrepreneur and his or her firm may serve as a working context. The entrepreneur serves as problem owner and the student somehow tries to embrace the entrepreneurial mindset and provide solutions to the problem of the entrepreneur. Students would typically have been introduced to theories before being confronted with entrepreneurial problems – and real-life entrepreneurial problems serve as settings or training grounds where students can learn to apply theories to real situations. The inclusion of entrepreneurs in situated learning sessions may take many forms. In the simplest way the problem is perhaps already interpreted by the entrepreneur and presented to the student in a clearly formulated way. In such cases students are engaged in ‘closed problem-solving’ in the sense that the entrepreneur defines the arena of problem-solving for the students. In other cases the student may work in the entrepreneur’s firm for a while to identify relevant problems and formulate their extent in a comprehensive way before solving them. In such cases, students are also invited to take part in a process of ‘open problem-solving’ as the entrepreneur has not defined the problem for the students. Instead, it is up to the student to conceptualize and narrow down the problem in a relevant way. Demands on the invited entrepreneur differ widely with respect to resources, openness and not least the perspective of ‘what is in it for us’. The situation may also be reversed towards a situation where the student owns the problem. This is an even more open and personal problem situation. In such cases the starting point is that the students act as nascent entrepreneurs, taking a strong focus on their own venture and the perspectives and problems associated with the venturing process. The invited entrepreneur, and bankers, venture capitalists and auditors may thus serve as a reality checker. Based on their own experiences they can give qualified feedback on the problem and provide assumptions and suggestions to the nascent student entrepreneur. In such cases, students would work to create their own opportunities and ideas, and at some stage use the external entrepreneurs and advisers as sparring partners who can help them elaborate on and evaluate their entrepreneurial venture on a peer-to-peer basis before they meet the real market response of customers and competitors. The expertise of the entrepreneur and the advisers selected is critical. Very often small-business owners in later stages of their venture as well as different types of


5.

47

advisers may exercise a causal logic at the expense of an effectual reasoning in their approach to guiding the student entrepreneur. This points to the critical issue of how to select entrepreneurs and advisers for reality-check processes. In the case of the ‘entrepreneur as problem owner’ as well as in the case of the ‘entrepreneur as reality checker’, the problem belongs to either the entrepreneur or the student. A different situation may arise, however, when the student and the entrepreneur are invited to join forces and pursue a common problem or a joint opportunity. In order for such a situation to emerge, the two will have to meet. In practise this situation often occurs when students promote ideas and inventions they have for a business or that have welfare potential, or when they pursue opportunities they think are favourable to them in their particular situation. The entrepreneur thus becomes a potential stakeholder that the student wants to engage in his or her entrepreneurial project. In this case the student and the invited entrepreneur become two entrepreneurs in interplay. In other words, they are two entrepreneurs who have to co-work in order to realize the entrepreneurial potential of the situation. This is often the characteristics of ‘camps’ where intense processes among participants take them beyond their daily life of goal-oriented and rational behaviour and into a playful and collaborative atmosphere. The camp principles of diversity, problem orientation, action learning and future orientation enable students and entrepreneurs to see a possible solution to a future problem before it has become reality (Bager, 2009).

The five different purposes for including the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship education, and hence five different roles of the entrepreneur in the classroom, are illustrated in Table 4.1. In the table they are further combined with three different didactic approaches to entrepreneurship education: education about entrepreneurship, education for entrepreneurship and education through entrepreneurship. Table 4.1 illustrates several points. In the simplest way it just shows how entrepreneurs can be involved in the three different forms of entrepreneurship education. This reading shows that some combinations are meaningful, while the combinations illustrated by empty cells in the matrix are irrelevant or meaningless. Table 4.1, however, also shows an increasing difficulty in going from a ‘traditional top-down instructive’ approach, represented in the top left of the table, to a ‘progressive bottom-up constructive’ approach in the bottom right of the table (Gibb, 1993; Lourenco and Jones, 2006). Before returning to the general logic of Table 4.1, we briefly explain the three didactic approaches of ‘about, for and through’ entrepreneurship. Education about entrepreneurship is the traditional approach to education at most higher education institutions. Like most other academic disciplines, entrepreneurship has a number of subject areas and a body of literature. The canon of entrepreneurship literature holds the classics of entrepreneurship such as Schumpeter, Kirzner and McClelland; modern classics such as Stevenson, Gartner, Aldrich and Shane; and alternative paradigms such as Sarasvathy or Johannisson. Further, there are a number of sub-disciplines of entrepreneurship and special topics that can be taught, such as enterprise development, entrepreneurial finance or risk management. These well-established theories are the foundation for teaching ‘about entrepreneurship’. The ‘about entrepreneurship’ approach assumes entrepreneurship to be a particular and well-defined discipline that can be taught according to the same principles as other

48


Table 4.1

The role of the entrepreneur in different educational settings

The didactical approach The purpose of including entrepreneurs in the learning process

About

Illustrative

The entrepreneur is invited to illustrate phenomena from theory The entrepreneur is invited to personify entrepreneurial values

Role models

Problem owner

Reality check

Co-worker

For

The entrepreneur is invited to influence the student’s perceptions of entrepreneurship as a desirable career choice The entrepreneur serves as a training ground where students can learn to apply theories The entrepreneur – or advisers – are invited to give qualified experiencebased feedback

The entrepreneur is a potential stakeholder in the students venture

Through

The entrepreneur is a dialogue partner interacting with the student on a peer-to-peer basis Both the student and the entrepreneur are ‘entrepreneurs’ who have to cowork in order to co-create

well-established disciplines (Fiet, 2001). This approach can, however, be criticized for overemphasizing theory and abstract teacher-centred learning styles and for assuming conceptual knowledge to be an end in itself (Lourenco and Jones, 2006). Education ‘about entrepreneurship’ thus calls for the presence of entrepreneurial expertise as a corrective measure to its theory and teacher dominance. What then is the entrepreneurial expertise reached in this didactic approach? It can be seen as a practitioner’s challenge to the world of theories. Textbook conceptions on entrepreneurial personality, risk-taking behaviour and conventional textbook wisdom of the role of business plans may be challenged. Macro-based perspectives and psychological approach perspectives may be challenged by the cogent complexity presented by the entrepreneur’s presence. Learning about entrepreneurship will not necessarily lead to education for entrepreneurship. Education for entrepreneurship can take several forms, but is typically built on


49

the intellectual heritage of management discipline and organized around a business plan structure. The causal reasoning embedded in management heritage and strategic business planning may be challenged and supplemented with sub-topics such as idea generation, opportunity identification, resource planning and idea-pitching. On top of that, several institutions of higher education have established different kinds of support for students who wish to start a business, some as incubator communities, some as Venture Cups and some as coaching oriented activities. However, a number of alternative approaches to entrepreneurial learning do also exist (Gibb, 2002; Kirby, 2006). The understanding of entrepreneurial expertise changes under this heading of ‘for entrepreneurship’. Here expertise serves more as support – experience-based knowledge is infusing and enriching textbook recipes on how to do it; thus changing the students balance between textbook-based recipes and experience-based recipes. Both the descriptive ‘about entrepreneurship’ approach and the more normative ‘for entrepreneurship’ approach are primarily based on theory. Entrepreneurship, however, shares a lot with artistic production (Jack and Anderson, 1999). As the essence of entrepreneurship involves creation and innovation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to learn via traditional teaching methods. Instead more experiential forms of learning come in useful. Education through entrepreneurship is based on the idea that learning can be established experientially by bringing the students through an entrepreneurial process (Bager and Blenker, 2008; Hjorth and Johannisson, 2007). From this point of view enterprising behaviour is learned when students perform the entrepreneurial process. This process begins with the student’s individual situation and the opportunities he faces in this situation. From this starting point the entrepreneurial student reaches out of the university in order to pursue opportunities. Participating in this process can help students to acquire entrepreneurial competences as well as abilities related to other relevant disciplines, that is, management, literature, physics, and so on. Since the quest for expertise is driven by a personal wish to venture, knowledge, action and resource needs generated though the entrepreneurial process change dramatically. The student is confronted with the real-life ambiguity stemming from different perceptions of risks and opportunities embedded with different partners, stakeholders and supervisors. The entrepreneur becomes a dialogue partner who interacts with the student as an equal. Both see the other as an entrepreneur with whom to co-work in order to co-create opportunities. An important aspect of inviting entrepreneurs and external advisers to class is, then, the challenge of individual beliefs, values and imaginations which makes up the idiosyncratic space for the individual evolution and opportunity development of the student. So far we have shown the difficulty of moving from a ‘traditional top-down instructive’ approach to a ‘progressive bottom-up constructive’ approach, illustrated by the movement from the top left to the bottom right of Table 4.1. Teaching ‘about entrepreneurship’, where the entrepreneur is used as an example to illustrate a theoretical point, is consistent with academic traditions. Yet, facilitating a personal learning process through entrepreneurship and co-work with entrepreneurs outside the educational institution is a much more challenging task for students, teachers and entrepreneurs. There is an increasing level of involvement from all three actors: teachers, students and

50


Table 4.2

The role of actors in the three different forms of entrepreneurship education

Actor Didactics

Entrepreneur

Teacher

Student

About

Illustrative Storytelling Experience

Expert Lecturer Interpreter

For

Role model Reality check Mentor Reality check Facilitator Co-worker

Education organizer Selection agent Matchmaker Process facilitator

Empty container Reflector Consultant to be Bureaucrat to be Entrepreneur under formation Nascent entrepreneur

Through

Opportunity seeker In transition Novel entrepreneur

entrepreneurs. We contend, however, that the difficulty of moving from a ‘traditional top-down instructive’ approach to a ‘progressive bottom-up constructive’ approach is accompanied by pedagogical challenges. Following the line from the top left to bottom right in Table 4.1 involves a significant transformation not only in what is taught, but especially in how it is taught (Kirby 2006). Each of the three actors, that is, the entrepreneur, the teacher and the student, takes part for different purposes and contributes differently to the entrepreneurial learning process. In Table 4.2 we have tried to illustrate how the role of these different actors take different forms in each of the three didactical situations. The three didactic situations ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’ are characterized by different role combinations among the three participating actors. They not only play three different roles, each also brings in three different necessities of a fruitful entrepreneurship education. The teacher thus brings in the rigour of theory, the entrepreneur brings in practice based on experience and, ideally, the student brings in enterprising behaviour (if he or she is not dominated by the two other actors). In the following we show what happens in each of the three didactic settings. The ‘about entrepreneurship’ education is characterized by the teacher being in the centre of the learning process. In its most traditional form the teacher as an expert chooses which theory is relevant for the student and he or she lectures on concepts, contexts and coherences. The entrepreneur is in the classroom in order to illustrate these issues in a realistic way. The student has relatively little influence on the learning process. In the simplest form the student is thus seen as an empty container into which the teacher can pour knowledge. The entrepreneur may influence the learning process since his or her storytelling can involve experience-based ‘truths’ that contrast with the academic wisdom of the teacher. The teacher, then, must take on the role of interpreter of theoretical anomalies and contradictions between theory and practice. This further changes the role of the student, who becomes a reflector of which theories are useful for what different purposes. Despite theoretical reflections, this kind of education will probably not turn students into entrepreneurs, but it may be useful for other purposes. There is a general need in


51

public and private administrations for employees with a solid theoretical understanding of entrepreneurship, either because they are civil servants and thus part of the policy formation process or because they are consultants and part of the policy implementation process (Koch, 2003). A solid ‘about’ entrepreneurship education can thus be of fundamental value for the further development of society. In the typical ‘for entrepreneurship’ education an abstract assumption of the entrepreneurship student is the centre of the learning process. Most ‘for’ entrepreneurship education thus assumes that the student – or nascent entrepreneur – moves through a number of phases. Typical phases of this process could be entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial aspirations, opportunity identification, idea generation, idea-pitching, resource acquisition and incubation. In this process, where the student is transformed into an entrepreneur, a number of educational activities can be organized around him or her. At the beginning of the assumed process, the entrepreneur can serve primarily as a role model, infusing the student with entrepreneurial attitudes and aspirations and opening new career perspectives for students. Later as the student may see opportunities and begin to form ideas, the entrepreneur can serve as a reality checker and, in the late stages of the process, as a mentor. The primary role of the teacher is to organize the curriculum in way that fits the stage the student has reached. In this respect, the teacher is a matchmaker who selects appropriate entrepreneurs and advisers for the nascent entrepreneur to confront as he or she moves along in the entrepreneurial learning process. Despite the appeal of the process, it is fuelled by traditional business school managerial logic and it is worth remembering that it is based on an abstract assumption and stereotyped version of what the student goes through in his or her effort to become an entrepreneur. In reality the young entrepreneur may take many alternative routes. In the ‘through entrepreneurship’ education the student as an entrepreneur is the centre of the learning process. If we accept the definition of entrepreneurship as an ‘individualopportunity nexus’ (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), placing the student as an entrepreneur in the centre of education, it implies that the students’ interplay with opportunities should form the roles of both the teacher and the entrepreneur. The central role of the teacher is to be process facilitator of the student’s opportunity seeking process. As we are talking about an individual-opportunity nexus, this process cannot be generalized and stereotyped as easily as the ‘for entrepreneurship’ situation outlined above. Instead, each individual student faces his or her particular opportunities – and each opportunity is only an opportunity for a particular individual. The learning process is further complicated by the fact that the student as an individual is in transition. He or she is thus one individual facing some opportunities at the beginning of the process, but another individual facing other opportunities at the end of the process (if the process has an end). In this perspective, the entrepreneur is not brought to the classroom on the teacher’s initiative, but on that of the student in his or her individual opportunity-seeking process. Students may bring in entrepreneurs because they want a reality check on the opportunities they see; they may bring entrepreneurs in because they want them to facilitate access to other entrepreneurs; or they may bring them in because they are potential partners the student needs to associate with in order to realize his or her opportunities.

52


This fundamentally changes the role of the entrepreneur. He or she is now the student’s co-worker. We have shown how the role of the three central actors in entrepreneurship education changes in the three didactical situations. Both the ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’ approach to entrepreneurship education has its relevance. We must however be aware that the ‘about entrepreneurship’ and the ‘for entrepreneurship’ approach represents two familiar sides of the same causation logic. This causation logic of means-end thinking is very familiar and comfortable for the educational system. The ‘through’ entrepreneurship approach represents a more effectual approach to entrepreneurship education which is yet to be utilized in our educational systems. Much is yet to be done in elaborating on an effectual approach to education; a central challenge for teachers is to care less about what they teach and more about how they teach students when involving entrepreneurs in entrepreneurship education. Recommendations for entrepreneurship education and research The way entrepreneurs and external actors have been included in the curriculum of entrepreneurship education has not been questioned until now. The mainstream view is to stress the importance of including successful entrepreneurs and encourage the inclusion of role models in the teaching agenda. Less attention has been given the learning potential of confronting students with failures and exposing them to the highly differentiated entrepreneurial culture, its different values, beliefs and conceptions of opportunities. This chapter has hopefully revealed that the inclusion of entrepreneurs in teaching contexts and the use of entrepreneurial expertise herein take many forms, depending on what didactic intent the entrepreneurship education is formed to suit. However, these considerations lead to the much more complicated reflections of how to include entrepreneurs in the curriculum. Selection procedures are a necessity; assessments of the open-mindedness of the entrepreneurs are in need, and so are considerations of the practical paradigm and experience base which are expected to be delivered by the entrepreneurs in class. We need to analyse much more in depth how the inclusion of entrepreneurs enriches the learning process in different educational curricula and in differentiated didactical perspectives. On the one hand, the quest for action learning supported by the practical experiences of live entrepreneurs may lead to experimental learning which lacks the reflective power delivered by appropriate theoretical foundations. On the other hand, we know all too well that theoretical learning about entrepreneurship, even with the inclusion of practical cases, may motivate, but not necessarily enhance, the entrepreneurial behaviour among our students. So, what we need is experimental-based research set up to reveal the ways in which cognitive and action learning can be combined in a more fruitful way and promote the inclusion of entrepreneurial expertise. References Bager, T. (2009), ‘The camp model for entrepreneurship teaching’, paper presented to EFMD Conference, 26–27 February, Barcelona.


53

Bager, L.T. and P. Blenker (2008), ‘Bevidsthed om læring – en kompetence med udgangspunkt i entrepreneuriel undervisning’, in H.L.Andersen (red.), Bevidsthed om læring i uddannelserne: progression, portfolio og entrepreneurship, 1 udg., University of Aarhus, Aarhus Universitet, s. 32–49. European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General (2008) Promotion of SMEs Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship, Final version, March. Fiet, J.O. (2001), ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, (1), 1–24 Gartner, W.B. and T. Baker (2008), ‘No cash no fear: just so stories for an entrepreneurial age’. Conference Paper, Nordic Small Business Conference, Tallin, May. Gibb, A.A. (1993), ‘The enterprise culture and education’, International Small Business Journal, 11 (3), 11–34. Gibb, A. (2002) ‘In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4 (3), 233–69. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2008) ‘Executive Report’, available at: http://www.gemconsortium. org/download/1233151745634/GEM_Global_08.pdf (accessed 16 February 2009). Hjorth, D and B. Johannisson (2007), ‘Learning as an entrepreneurial process’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 1: A General Perspective, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 46–67. Jack, S.L. and A.R. Anderson (1999), ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5 (3), 110–25. Katz, J.A. (1995), ‘Managing practioners in the entrepreneurship class’, Simulation and Gaming, 26 (3), 361–75. Kirby, D.A. (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?’, in A. Fayolle and H. Klandt (eds), International Entrepreneurship Eucation, Issues and Newness, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 35–54. Koch, L.T., (2003), ‘Theory and practice of entrepreneurship education: a German view’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (4), 633–60. Lourenco F. and O. Jones (2006), ‘Learning paradigms in entrepreneurship education: comparing the traditional and enterprise modes’, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship Working Paper 027/2006, June. Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. NIRAS Consultants, FORA, ECON Pöyry (2008) ‘Survey of entrepreneurship education in higher education in Europe’, report for European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. Sarasvathy, S. (2008), Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field’, Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 217–26. Sexton, D.L. and N.B. Upton (1987), ‘Evaluation of an innovative approach to teaching entrepreneurship’, Journal of Small Business Management, 35 (1), 35–43.

5

Assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education and training Thomas Lans and Judith Gulikers

Introduction While entrepreneurship education1 is a ‘hot’ topic these days, the individual assessment of entrepreneurial competence from a learning paradigm remains an issue that has not been explored extensively in entrepreneurship education literature (Béchard and Grégoire, 2005). Entrepreneurship education is enjoying considerable growth worldwide, both in initial education as well as post-initial and more work-based learning trajectories (Katz, 2007). These courses can have various purposes ranging from raising awareness of what entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial behaviour entails to increasing an entrepreneurial spirit or culture among certain employees or aiming at creating successful start-ups in a specific context. The enormous number of courses at different levels suggests that there is also a diversity of educational assessment strategies adopted to assess students in all sorts of entrepreneurial courses and trajectories. Entrepreneurship education scholars and practitioners in this matter face several assessment challenges. First, due to the lack of definition of the concept ‘entrepreneurship’ as well as the meaning it can take in different settings, conceptions of entrepreneurship differ between individuals, but also between sectors, countries and systems; these in turn differently influence (potential) learning trajectories in entrepreneurship education and training (that is, ‘couleur locale’) (Kirby, 2004). For instance, emphasizing entrepreneurial behaviours, entrepreneurial attitudes and culture, rather than viewing entrepreneurship as mainly the creation of new ventures (Fayolle and Klandt, 2006) has serious consequences for entrepreneurial courses, including for what and how students are assessed. Second, with the contemporary focus by governments on the accreditation of prior learning (APL), stimulation of lifelong learning and the recognition of informal learning in workplaces, assessment of entrepreneurial competence is no longer the exclusive domain of formalized entrepreneurship education or small business support programmes. Questions about assessments can therefore be raised from clearly different organizational backgrounds, with often different underlying traditions (for example, selection versus development). Finally, with the introduction of competence-based education in many parts of Europe, the fundamental ideas about what the functions and configurations of assessments are in education have changed along with ideas about what constitutes high-quality assessments. Where, traditionally, mostly standardized assessments (for example, multiple-choice tests) were used for the purpose of ‘assessments of learning’, more emphasis is currently placed on using individualized assessments to stimulate and direct future learning, also called ‘assessment for learning’ (for example, Birenbaum et al., 2006). Assessments are not only interesting from the perspective of classical student evaluation (did I pass the examination or not), but are increasingly seen as an important vehicle for learning and (re)shaping personal development trajectories (Dochy and McDowell, 1998). 54

Assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education

55

For entrepreneurship education scholars, these developments provide challenging points for discussing the function, set-up and characteristics of assessments in entrepreneurship education inside and outside of school contexts. Issues like the meaning and learnability of entrepreneurship, the measurability of entrepreneurial learning and development, the focus and role of entrepreneurship education in general and in particular the role of assessments in learning and instruction are fundamental to this. In this chapter we unfold these challenges in the first section and link them with new ideas on student assessment in the second; a link with general educational (assessment) literature which is still in short supply in entrepreneurship education articles (Béchard and Grégoire, 2005). Accordingly, we contribute to the field of entrepreneurship education by elaborating the first stepping stones for thinking about and developing assessments for entrepreneurial competence. Finally we finish with outlining future areas of research on assessment of entrepreneurship and assessment methods in entrepreneurship education. Changing views on entrepreneurship The entrepreneurship literature has a long tradition in investigating the entrepreneur as someone exceptional, a creative genius. Many, more or less, innate characteristics, traits, have been associated with entrepreneurs, those who do start-up a new business, and nonentrepreneurs, those who do not (for example, managers). Not surprisingly, in the beginning of the 1990s approaches aimed at defining the entrepreneur as a set of traits were increasingly criticized for suffering from a ‘superman’ approach (in fact many entrepreneurs differ), and that an approach like this would not lead to a better understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour (Gartner, 1989).2 Furthermore, a fixed view on entrepreneurship would never explain why studies reported significant relationships between participation in entrepreneurship education programmes and subsequent entrepreneurial success (for example, growth, survival rates, income) (Charney and Libecap, 2000). Since the last decade attention has shifted towards the nature and characteristics of entrepreneurial processes and events such as opportunity identification, resource mobilization, the creation of new organizations, and firm growth and networking (Hulsink, 2005). What is more, entrepreneurialism, for example, people who see opportunity, is no longer exclusively the domain of new venture creation, but is increasingly addressed in all sorts of processes such as internationalization, innovation, small business competitiveness, sector and community development, and so on (for example, Hayton and Kelley, 2006; Man et al., 2002; Sapienza et al., 2006; Stathopoulou et al., 2004). Furthermore, there is an increase of empirical evidence which suggests that entrepreneurial processes or events are enabled by entrepreneurial competencies (Baron and Ensley, 2006; DeTienne and Chandler, 2004; Ucbasaran et al., 2008), motives (for example, self-efficacy; Zhao et al., 2005), cognitive abilities (Mitchell et al., 2000) and networks (Elfring and Hulsink, 2003). Interestingly, many of these studies emphasize that these constructs (for example, entrepreneurial competencies) are in fact subject to learning and development (for example, Baron and Ensley, 2006; DeTienne and Chandler, 2004). Studies like those of Baron and Ensley (2006) describe how experienced entrepreneurs outclass their novice counterparts in identifying business opportunities. Not because they were born more entrepreneurial, but because their cognitive frameworks were more developed, in terms of richness and pattern recognition, which facilitated their decision-making. Also DeTienne and Chandler (2004) showed in an educational

56


experiment that opportunity identification is a competence that can be learned, even when a predisposition towards innovation is not present. For entrepreneurship education, the shift towards entrepreneurial processes and behaviours (for example, opportunity identification and pursuit; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), the wide diversity of contexts and target groups in which entrepreneurship can be practised, and the learnability of entrepreneurial skills, abilities and behaviours is important, since it stresses that entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education is more than the start and realization of a new venture by someone with the right set of resources and traits. Therefore among others, Fayolle and Klandt (2006) argue that entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education should be viewed from a broader perspective than the classical view of ‘venture creation’. They argue that entrepreneurship should also be seen as a matter of behaviours and a matter of culture (for example, entrepreneurial spirit, attitude). The current challenge, therefore, is about how to engage students in learning trajectories that foster entrepreneurial behaviours and an entrepreneurial spirit. Rather than teaching about entrepreneurship, the real challenge lies in learning for entrepreneurship (Gibb, 2002; Kirby, 2004). This has consequences not only for developing curricula and learning activities, but also for developing appropriate assessments. Assessment developers should embrace this shift in thinking, nurture the diversity of entrepreneurial careers and hence offer possibilities for a wide variety of learners from different contexts (cf. Assessments for Prior Learning; Joosten-Ten Brinke et al., 2008). New ideas about student assessment Changing functions of assessments Along with differentiating views on entrepreneurship, the past three decades have also denoted a change in perspectives on the role and function of educational assessments from being only ‘assessments of learning’ (that is, summative assessments) towards also being ‘assessments for learning’ (that is, formative assessments) (Birenbaum et al., 2006; cf. ‘learning for entrepreneurship’, Kirby, 2004). The previous discussions might indicate that standardized summative assessments of entrepreneurial competence focusing on measuring whether or not a student will be a (more) successful entrepreneur in general might be hard and will only be appropriate in very specific contexts such as for selection purposes in existing companies. A more interesting question, however, is if this is the kind of assessment in which we are interested in entrepreneurship education and training? Does current society not require mainly flexible, lifelong learners who are aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and are able to develop in and adapt to different business situations? Does the labour market ask for people who passed an entrepreneurship test or know how to write a business plan, or are the best opportunities set aside for those who have developed a broad awareness of the entrepreneurial environment and have the ability to identify their entrepreneurial intentions and opportunities in relation to various entrepreneurship contexts? And would it be wrong to assume that participants in all sorts of entrepreneurship courses are often intrinsically motivated students who are interested in gaining an insight into entrepreneurial opportunities and their own possibilities in this respect, instead of students simply taking a course in order to pass an examination or because they are obliged to take the course? Answers to these questions determine the focus and function of entrepreneurship education assessments.


57

High-stakes, summative, standardized tests are required and used for accreditation and accountability purposes, but are also criticized for being too simplified and knowledge focused, not being valid for what the real world asks, having negative effects on student learning, and simplifying the course by stimulating teaching and learning-to-the-test at the expense of addressing entrepreneurial competence on the whole (for example, Knight, 2000). A growing amount of assessment literature stresses diminishing the focus on high-stakes, standardized tests in favour of more interpretative, qualitative and personalized assessments developed in dialogue between students and teachers for the purpose of helping students grow and show all they have got (for example, Harlen, 2005; Knight, 2000; Taras, 2005). We argue that entrepreneurship education, and the kind of participants taking entrepreneurship courses, primarily ask for individualized, formative assessments that strongly relate to the professional world of entrepreneurship, and that high-stakes, standardized assessments should not be the main focus of entrepreneurship courses. Formative assessment aims at raising awareness and developing understanding about what elements are important in entrepreneurship contexts, diagnosing and discussing students’ strengths and weaknesses in relation to these important elements, and formulating learning goals for further development (Orsmond et al., 2004; Sadler, 1989). Assessment, viewed in this way, is actually a learning activity that gives valuable insight and feedback on every individual student’s competence. In the case of entrepreneurship education, these kinds of assessment can be valuable for finding entrepreneurship niches for an individual participant, and can therefore be suitable for entrepreneurship education aiming at developing an entrepreneurial spirit and fostering entrepreneurial behaviours. Changing configurations of assessments The debates on the learnabilty and ‘couleur locale’ of entrepreneurial endeavours, the heterogeneity of participants with regard to their entrepreneurial experiences, beliefs and the different functions of assessment (that is, summative or formative) fit nicely with the changed perspectives on the design of educational assessments, which has been known as the transition from a testing culture towards an assessment culture (Birenbaum, 2003). Contrary to the testing culture, which is rooted in empirical-analytic views on learning in which knowledge is viewed as an objective truth, the assessment culture is based on constructivist epistemologies on knowledge and learning. These view knowledge as a relative and subjective concept that an individual or a community develops in a certain social and cultural context (for example, Honebein et al., 1993; Rae, 2006; Rae and Carswell, 2000). Assessment in this assessment culture should, among other characteristics, (1) be contextualized in professional practice or society and address professional thinking and acting, (2) as a result focus not only on knowledge, but on knowledge, skills and attitudes integrated and used to perform in this real world, (3) allow individual perspectives, interpretations and contributions, (4) recognize not only end products, but also the process leading to a product, and (5) stimulate peoples’ understanding and further learning (for example, Segers et al., 2003). Contrary to the standardized, objective and knowledgebased tests of the testing culture, the assessment culture embraces more interpretative, personalized forms that address students’ ability to perform in the real world, both social and professional. Examples of these kinds of assessments are the use of portfolios, observations of actual performance, reflective journals and workplace assessments. These new

58


assessments all aim at more appropriately addressing the thinking and acting processes that participants require in today’s society and dynamic labour market. Characteristics of competence-based assessments In the context of these new assessments, practitioners and researchers often talk about ‘competence-based assessments’ or ‘performance-based assessments’. In this chapter we use the term competence-based assessment. Competence-based assessments include all the above mentioned characteristics and primarily focus on students’ ability to integrate knowledge, skills and attitudes into performing job relevant tasks or roles (Gulikers et al., 2004; Mulder, 2001). It furthermore relates to the concept of competence-based education as currently conceptualized in Europe (see Biemans et al., 2004; Wesselink et al., 2007). Several characteristics which constitute the heart of competence-based assessments will be further elaborated on in this section (for example, Birenbaum et al., 2006; Gulikers et al., 2004) and connected to possibilities for learning-oriented and individualised assessments in entrepreneurship education that recognize the heterogeneity of the target population. One of the most important characteristics of competence-based assessments is the direct link with professional practice and roles and tasks representative of this professional practice (Birenbaum et al., 2006; Gulikers et al., 2004; Wesselink et al., 2007). Having a clear understanding of professional practice is crucial for developing competent entrepreneurs as well as for developing valid competence-based assessments (Dall’Alba, 2004; Gulikers et al., 2008). As argued, unfortunately there is no clear-cut, overall description of what the professional practice of an entrepreneur actually is. It can vary from engaging in fast-growth, innovative high-technology start-ups to being involved in social entrepreneurship activities. It implies that explicating an understanding of what entrepreneurship means in a particular entrepreneurship course or training is a necessary condition for entrepreneurship education and assessment. This understanding should function as the basis for the assessment, for example, it should frame the assessment tasks as well as the assessment criteria (Dall’Alba, 2004; Gulikers et al., 2004; Sluijsmans and Prins, 2006). This is not to say that there are no common elements of entrepreneurship that will be important in adjacent contexts, but their exact meaning and importance might differ (Baron and Markman, 2003; Lans et al., 2008; Man and Lau, 2005). This point of view will be elaborated later in this chapter. A second important characteristic of competence-based assessment is that the assessment should be more individualized, adapted to an individual student’s understanding, beliefs and learning goal, instead of mainly striving for a standard assessment for all students (Dochy, 2001). Several studies point out that developing competent professionals in other domains (for example, medical, management and teacher education) requires not only addressing the understanding of professional practice, but also addressing students’ understanding of practice (Dall’Alba, 2004; Lizzio and Wilson, 2004). The diverse participants in entrepreneurship courses are likely to vary to large extents in their understandings, beliefs and experiences (for example, novice students having perhaps a naive understanding of entrepreneurship, as in making a lot of money, or serial entrepreneurs having much experience but only in a specific context and being implicit). This complicates the development of standard and universal educational programmes and assessments. Instead, this requires assessments that allow students to bring in their personal


59

understanding of entrepreneurship, develop or change their (naive) understanding, and allow students to adapt the assessment to fit with their entrepreneurship experiences, context and future intentions. This brings us to a third characteristic of competence-based assessment, which is the active involvement of students in the development and use of the assessment (for example, Birenbaum, et al., 2006; Sluijsmans and Prins, 2006). Assessment should not be done to students, but done with students (Shreeve et al., 2004): actively involving students in the development and use of the assessment provides them with more understanding of the assessment, increases their commitment to the assessment and in the end it can even raise their performance levels (for example, Black and Wiliam, 1998; Sluijsmans et al., 2004). One fruitful possibility in this case is involving students in the development of assessment criteria that reflect entrepreneurial competence as used in practice (Orsmond et al., 2004; Sluijsmans et al., 2004). In competence-based assessment the focus is on criterion-based referencing, which means that student performances are compared to performance levels described in the assessment criteria, instead of norm-referencing in which student performances are compared to one another (for example, Sadler, 1989). Developing these assessment criteria should be one of the first steps in developing an assessment, because these criteria seem to be one of the most influential aspects to determine student learning: students learn what is specified in the assessment criteria and they learn better when they understand the criteria and perceive them as relevant for their future lives (Gulikers et al., 2008). Thus, after discussing students’ understandings of professional practice of entrepreneurs and developing a shared understanding of what entrepreneurship in the context of a particular course means, this understanding can help the development of assessment criteria together with students. This increases the likelihood of developing transparent, competence-based (instead of knowledge-based), and professionally relevant assessment criteria (that is, criteria reflecting entrepreneurship competence as used in practice), that are understood and shared among all students and teachers, which is crucial for valid and reliable competence-based assessment (Knight, 2000; Sluijsmans and Prins, 2006). So, we have discussed the crucial point of first developing a shared understanding and assessment criteria, but now what? We argue that the assessment criteria can, or even should, be equal for all students. This standardization of the assessment criteria warrants a certain degree of comparability of the assessments for all students on the one hand (Baartman et al., 2006), but also allows individualization of the assessment tasks on the other hand, both important quality aspects of competence-based assessments. The aim of the assessment should be to find out to what extent a student already fulfils the assessment criteria of entrepreneurship and what aspects of these criteria still need to be developed. Individualization of the assessment tasks means that different students, with different backgrounds, entrepreneurial experiences and future entrepreneurial intentions or learning goals, might prefer different performances as pieces of evidence for proving their competence on the assessment criteria. This way, entrepreneurship assessment can meet individual differences between participants. Obviously, participants taking a course will never completely satisfy the assessment criteria from the start. Therefore, all participants are required to critically reflect upon their brought in pieces of evidence (based on previous entrepreneurship or related activities) (for example, Knight, 2000): ‘To what extent do my pieces of evidence show my entrepreneurial competence defined in the assessment criteria?’ The entrepreneurship course, in turn, has to offer students

60


possibilities to resolve the gaps and develop new pieces of evidence. This way, assessment becomes an ongoing process which is integrated with instruction and development (Biggs, 1996; Dochy, 2001). To summarize, we argued that entrepreneurship education first asks for learningoriented assessments that recognize the heterogeneity of the participants of the course as well as the entrepreneurship contexts. These assessments should allow students to identify and understand the crucial aspects of entrepreneurship in their context (leading towards defining the assessment criteria), should offer them opportunities to show what they already can do (that is, the competence levels they already possess) and find out what aspects they can or should develop in the future in order to become a (more successful) entrepreneur in their professional context. When these conditions are met the assessments will be characterized by transparency of the assessment (criteria), contextualization in professional practice, comparability of assessment criteria while allowing individualization of assessment tasks, use of multiple sources of evidence including critical thinking through reflection. These characteristics are a recipe for high-quality assessments for learning (Knight, 2000). In addition, these kinds of assessments also fit nicely with the increased attention in lifelong learning and in the idea of ‘learning for entrepreneurship’. Finally, they offer application possibilities for formal initial entrepreneurship education (for example, at universities, vocational education), but also for personal or professional development in post-initial education and training programmes. In the next section, we will concretize the above mentioned discussions in a framework describing concrete steps for developing an assessment of entrepreneurial competence in the context of post-initial education and training programmes. Such programmes are aimed at making employees or (small) business owners more entrepreneurially competent, rather than stimulating them to start their own enterprise. Elaboration of the first steps towards an assessment The proposed framework describes four concrete steps in the beginning of developing an assessment for an entrepreneurship training: (1) choose one existing model or a combination of models that describe exemplary behaviours that are a useful starting point for thinking about and describing the professional activities of ‘an entrepreneur’ in the context of your specific course or training; (2) discuss and contextualize the chosen model(s) and participants’ understandings into a shared understanding of entrepreneurial activities and behaviours in your specific context; (3) develop concrete assessment criteria, and (4) find or develop pieces of evidence for diagnosing participants’ competence in relation to the assessment criteria. Starting with the first step, it is important to identify what constitutes entrepreneurship on a general abstraction level in a particular professional domain and what types of behaviours and underlying competencies are exemplary for entrepreneurship. There are some studies that link entrepreneurship within existing small businesses or large organizations explicitly with roles (that is, sets of behaviours) and subsequently underlying competencies. Although definitively not exclusive, Table 5.1 provides examples of such studies. Even though these models probably do not describe the whole conception of entrepreneurship necessary for a post-initial entrepreneurship course/training, they do offer a stepping stone for teachers/trainers to develop an understanding of the professional activities of entrepreneurship in the context of their course/training.

Assessing entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education Table 5.1

61

Key entrepreneurial behaviours in different entrepreneurial contexts

Authors

Context

Key entrepreneurial ‘behaviours’

Chandler and Jansen (1992) Bird (1995)

Founders of successful small manufacturing and service firms Review of entrepreneurial competence Competitiveness of SMEs

●

Man et al. (2002)

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Gibb (2002)

Entrepreneurship training

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Sadler-Smith et al. (2003)

Entrepreneurial styles in small businesses

●

Hayton and Kelley (2006)

Cooperate entrepreneurship in large organizations

●

●

● ● ●

Lans et al. (forthcoming)

Small entrepreneurial firms in the agri-food sector

● ● ●

Scanning the environment Selecting promising opportunities Formulating strategies Sustaining temporal tension Sustaining strategic focus Developing internal posture Forming the competitive scope Gathering and using resources Goal setting and strategic planning Finding opportunities Grasping opportunities Bringing networks together Taking initiative Taking calculated risks under uncertainty Perseverance to achieve goals Strategic thinking Managing culture (diversity, collaboration) Identifying customer needs and spotting opportunities Being alert and creative and associate in the opportunity identification process Accessing new knowledge, transferring and co-creating (new) knowledge Creating a vision and promote corporate entrepreneurship Gaining access to new resources, gaining legitimacy and supplying advice and guidance Analysing occupational core challenges, interpreting them and making inferences Taking initiative and being proactive in searching for new opportunities and renewal Being responsive, persuasive, able to adjust and cooperate with others

The various studies differ in the concreteness or focus of their defined entrepreneurial behaviours and some relate them to activities, styles or roles, also depending on the studied context. Chandler and Jansen (1992) discern, based on empirical data, three main activities in what they refer to as the entrepreneurial role: scanning the environment, selecting promising opportunities and formulating strategies. Bird (1995) in her review on entrepreneurial competence, proposes three general activities necessary for entrepreneurship, namely, sustaining temporal tension, sustaining strategic focus and developing internal posture. Gibb (2002) in his article on entrepreneurship training refers to seven key entrepreneurial behaviours, namely, finding opportunities, grasping opportunities, bringing networks together, taking initiative, taking calculated risks under

62


uncertainty, perseverance to achieve goals and strategic thinking (Gibb, 2002, p. 139). Sadler-Smith et al. (2003) talk about styles in their research. In their description they refer to the entrepreneurial style (as opposed to a managerial style) as behaviours that are focused on pursuing opportunities and managing diversity. Man et al. (2002) in their work discern three different entrepreneurial tasks which are crucial for small business competitiveness: (1) forming the competitive scope, (2) gathering and using resources, (3) goal setting and strategic planning (linking activity 1 and activity 2). Hayton and Kelley (2006), in their conceptual framework on entrepreneurial competence within larger organizations (corporate entrepreneurship), discern four key roles with underlying tasks and activities: the innovating, brokering, championing and sponsoring roles, respectively. The innovator role comprises entrepreneurial alertness, creativity and association in the opportunity identification process. The brokering roles consist of accessing new knowledge, transferring and co-creating (new) knowledge. Championing is about the creation of a vision and the promotion of corporate entrepreneurship within a company, whereas sponsoring focuses on the access to new resources, gaining legitimacy and supplying advice and guidance (Hayton and Kelley, 2006). Finally, from the context of sector development, Lans et al. (forthcoming) suggest a model of entrepreneurial competence which constitutes three core activities, namely analysing, pursuing and networking. Analysing concerns the ability to analyse occupational core challenges, interpret them and make inferences which are laid down in goals or strategies. The pursuing domain involves taking initiative and being proactive. The networking domain represents social competence in relation to the entrepreneurial task. Teachers/trainers can choose one or a combination of these models (or add other models not described here) as a starting point for developing entrepreneurship assessments. The next step is to use the chosen model(s) in the entrepreneurship course to develop a contextualized understanding of entrepreneurial competence in the context of this course and for addressing the participant’s understandings of entrepreneurship. Recent empirical research on two large-scale entrepreneurship training programmes in the Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium) illustrated that treating core entrepreneurial behaviours (for example, derived from a generic framework) and underlying attitudes, skills and knowledge as items for discussion is indeed crucial for the success of such training (Lans et al., 2008). This can be done in various ways, for example, individually (participant and trainer) or collectively. In individual trajectories, a participant can contextualize entrepreneurial competence in close cooperation with the organization the participant is representing. In collective activities, participants who have congruent visions on entrepreneurial endeavours can group together to develop a collective understanding. The third step is to collaboratively develop the assessment criteria based on this shared understanding. Assessment criteria should specify significant performance components of entrepreneurship in concrete terms and represent standards that determine the quality of performance when it typically occurs (Quellmalz, 1991). The described shared understanding of entrepreneurship is a good starting point for developing assessment criteria, but it often lacks specificity and substance. These assessment criteria should clearly communicate what behaviours and levels of performance are expected of successful entrepreneurs in this context and should allow differentiating between successful and


63

less successful entrepreneurs. For example, ‘networking’ can be part of the shared understanding of entrepreneurial competence in this context, that can result in an appropriate assessment criterion like ‘a successful entrepreneur (in this context) has at least people from outside his sector or type of business in his network’. Participants can engage in various (learning) activities for developing these assessment criteria, which are crucial learning activities as well. The learning activities should deal with identifying actual successful or unsuccessful entrepreneurial actions or behaviours. For example, activities like observing others and learning from examples (for example, expert entrepreneurs, role models) or interviewing entrepreneurs can be fruitful learning activities that allow participants to develop concrete assessment criteria. The final step that we will describe in this chapter, but not the final step in an actual assessment, deals with finding and developing evidence for the assessment criteria. Participants have to search for pieces of evidence that show their competence in relation to the assessment criteria. These pieces of evidence can come from previously conducted entrepreneurial or related activities or previously taken courses (for example, pieces of evidence for the networking criterion can be ‘your professional network developed while working in your company’ but also ‘the meetings you have arranged with national and international partners of your sports club’). For several assessment criteria, participants will not have any pieces of evidence at the beginning of the entrepreneurship course. This shows that during the course participants have to conduct or practise activities that relate to these assessment criteria. In the context of post-initial programmes and trainings, most participants will be working in a business setting that can offer them opportunities for developing activities relevant for the assessment criteria. At the end of an entrepreneurship course, the intention should be that participants can bring in relevant pieces of evidence for all the defined assessment criteria. Of course, there is much more to say about an assessment and its actual use in entrepreneurship courses; the framework is far from complete at this point. For example, choosing an appropriate assessment method, conducting self assessment or peer assessment, or giving feedback on assessment performances are all relevant activities in assessments. However, these activities deserve individual attention outside the scope of this chapter. Future research questions for entrepreneurship education research This relatively new area of assessment in entrepreneurship education offers many possibilities for entrepreneurship education research. Based on our discussions, we would like to propose three research areas. Two focus on short-term effects: one on personal development and self-efficacy and one on dealing with new situations. And one focuses on long-term effects: on the career paths of entrepreneurs. The learning-oriented, competence-based assessments described in this chapter focus on giving participants an insight into their strengths and weaknesses in their personal entrepreneurship context. In other words, we would expect participants to become more aware of what kind of entrepreneurial activities they should pursue in their context because these activities are close to their strengths, and what kind of activities they should do in order to develop their weaknesses. Thus, we would expect participants to more effectively and progressively develop themselves and choose appropriate activities in their (future) entrepreneurship context. In line with this, it is hypothesized that gaining

64


more insight into their strengths and weaknesses will positively influence their entrepreneurial self-efficacy (belief in one’s own competencies, Bandura, 1982). The second line of reasoning leading to ideas for research is based on associations with research on novices and experts. Expertise research shows that experts differ from novices in the way they deal with new situations, such as new opportunities (Baron and Ensley, 2006). Based on much more enriched schemata and understanding of the domain, experts can more effectively deal with new situations: they can reason how situations with certain characteristics should be dealt with most efficiently. In the context of entrepreneurship this might mean that entrepreneurs with a more elaborate understanding of what entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurship context means, as a result of the learning-oriented, competence-based assessment process described in this chapter, can more easily identify opportunities in their context and more effectively and efficiently deal with these new opportunities. This could, for example, be studied by comparing entrepreneurs with or without a learning-oriented assessment on the arguments and variables they use for analysing an opportunity and, in the longer term, the effectiveness of their chosen actions in response to the opportunity. In the long run, the process of developing and working on a learning-oriented assessment as described in this chapter should lead to improved entrepreneurial performance. As Stiggins said: ‘Once students internalise performance criteria and see how those criteria come into play in their own and each other’s performance, students often become better performers’ (1991, p. 38). Dall’Alba and Sandberg (2006) argue, based on studies conducted in various occupational fields, that competent professional performance depends on and differs based on the understanding of the profession. The way in which professional practice is understood is fundamental to how the practice in question is performed and developed, both by individuals and collectively. In our elaboration on the process of learning-oriented assessment, strong emphasis was placed on collaboratively developing a clear and shared understanding of entrepreneurship and its context, and on relating participants’ own capabilities to this understanding. It can be argued that entrepreneurs with this broader understanding of entrepreneurship end up with different entrepreneurial careers than entrepreneurs who have never been involved in this learningoriented process. For example, they might more easily develop into a portfolio or serial entrepreneur instead of developing within a narrow one-sided entrepreneurship context. So in sum, contemporary ideas on assessments from general educational literature in relation to entrepreneurship education are, in our opinion, complementary. They offer new ways of thinking about entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education and assessment. Developments which are not exclusively the domain of research are currently worked out in many schools and training institutes throughout Europe in practice. These developments provide researchers in the field of entrepreneurship education with challenging starting points not only concerning design questions, but also concerning evaluating and stimulating the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. Notes 1. We take a broad definition of entrepreneurship education in line with Fayolle and Klandt (2006) and Katz (2007), thus defining it not solely as initial education focusing on the creation of new businesses but also as any learning programme or process aimed at professional development (for example, making business owners more entrepreneurially competent, or learning for corporate entrepreneurship). 2. This does not mean that entrepreneurial traits should be ignored at all. Recent thorough meta-analysis


65

on more proximal entrepreneurship traits (such as locus of control, need for achievement and risk-taking) showed that some of these specific traits explain a considerable part of the variation (Rauch and Frese, 2007).

References Baartman, L.K.J., T.J. Bastiaens, P.A. Kirschner and C.P.M. van der Vleuten (2006), ‘The wheel of competency assessment: presenting quality criteria for competency assessment programmes’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 153–70. Bandura, A. (1982), ‘Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency’, American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122–47. Baron, R.A. and M.D. Ensley (2006), ‘Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs’, Management Science, 52 (9), 1331–44. Baron, R.A. and G.D. Markman (2003), ‘Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41–60. Béchard, J.P. and D. Grégoire (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of higher education’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (1), 22–43. Biemans, H., L. Nieuwenhuis, R. Poell, M. Mulder and R. Wesselink (2004), ‘Competence-based VET in the Netherlands: background and pitfalls’, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 56, 523–38. Biggs, J. (1996), ‘Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’, Higher Education, 32, 347–64. Bird, B. (1995), ‘Toward a theory of entrepreneurial competency’, Advances in Entrepreneurship Firm Emergence, and Growth, 2, 52–72. Birenbaum, M. (2003), ‘New insights into learning and teaching and the implications for asessment’, in M. Segers, F.J.R.C. Dochy and E. Cascallar (eds), Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Birenbaum, M., K. Breuer, E. Cascallar, F. Dochy, Y. Dori, J. Ridgeway and R. Wiesemes (2006), ‘A learning integrated assessment system’, Educational Research Review, 1, 61–69. Black, P. and D. Wiliam (1998), ‘Assessment and classroom learning’, Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7–74. Chandler, G.N. and E.J. Jansen (1992), ‘Founders’ self-assessed competence and venture performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, 7 (3), 223–36. Charney, A. and G.D. Libecap (2000), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona, 1985–1999, available at: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1262343 (accessed 9 May 2008). Dall’Alba, G. (2004), ‘Understanding professional practice: investigations before and after an educational programme’, Studies in Higher Education, 29 (6), 679–92. Dall’Alba, G. and J. Sandberg (2006), ‘Unveiling professional development: a critical review of stage models’, Review of Educational Research, 76 (3), 383–412. DeTienne, D.R. and G.N. Chandler (2004), ‘Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3 (3), 242–57. Dochy, F. (2001), ‘A new assessment era: different needs, new challenges’, Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 10 (1), 11–20. Dochy, F.J.R.C. and L. McDowell (1998), ‘Assessment as a tool for learning’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (4), 279–98. Elfring, T. and W. Hulsink (2003), ‘Networks in entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 21, 409–22. Fayolle, A. and H. Klandt (2006), International Entrepreneurship Education – Issues and Newness, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Gartner, W.B. (1989), ‘“Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 13 (4), 47–68. Gibb, A.A. (2002), ‘Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity’, Industry and Higher Education, 16 (3), 135–48. Gulikers, J., T. Bastiaens and P. Kirschner (2004), ‘A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (3), 67–85. Gulikers, J.T.M., L. Kester, P.A. Kirschner and T.J. Bastiaens (2008), ‘The effect of practical experience on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approach, and learning outcomes’, Learning and Instruction, 18, 172–86. Harlen, W. (2005), ‘Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for learning – tensions and synergies’, The Curriculum Journal, 16 (2), 207–23. Hayton, J.C. and D.J. Kelley (2006), ‘A competency-based framework for promoting corporate entrepreneurship’, Human Resource Management, 45 (3), 407–27. Honebein, P.C., T.M. Duffy and B.J. Fishman (1993), ‘Constructivism and the design of learning environments:

66


context and authentic activities for learning’, in T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D.H. Jonassen (eds), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 88–108. Hulsink, W. (2005), From Farming Knowledge to Knowledge Farming: The Contribution of Innovative Entrepreneurship and Networking to Agri-food and Other Technology Clusters, Wageningen: Wageningen University. Joosten-Ten Brinke, D., D.M.A. Sluijsmans, S. Brand-Gruwel and W.M.G. Jochems (2008), ‘The quality of procedures to assess and credit prior learning: implications for design’, Educational Research Review, 3 (1), 51–65. Katz, J. (2007), ‘Education and training in entrepreneurship’, in J.R. Baum, M. Frese and R. Baron (eds), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, SIOP Organisational Frontier Series, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kirby, D.A. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?’, Education & Training, 46 (8/9), 510–19. Knight, P. (2000), ‘The value of a programme-wide approach to assessment’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25 (3), 237–51. Lans, T., W. Hulsink, H. Baert and M. Mulder (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training in a small business context: insights from the competence-based approach’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16 (4), 363–83. Lans, T., J.A.A.M. Verstegen and M. Mulder (forthcoming), ‘Analysing, pursuing and networking: towards a validated three-factor framework for entrepreneurial competence from a small-firm perspective’, International Small Business Journal. Lizzio, A. and K. Wilson (2004), ‘First-year students’ perceptions of capability’, Studies in Higher Education, 29 (1), 109–28. Man, T.W.Y. and T. Lau (2005), ‘The context of entrepreneurship in Hong Kong. An investigation through the patterns of entrepreneurial competencies in contrasting industrial environments’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12 (4), 461–81. Man, T.W.Y., T. Lau and K.F. Chan (2002), ‘The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises – a conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competences’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 123–42. Mitchell, R.K., B. Smith, K.W. Seawright and E.A. Morse (2000), ‘Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision’, The Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5), 974–93. Mulder, M. (2001), Competence development – some background thoughts. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 7 (4), 147–58. Orsmond, P., S. Merry and A. Callaghan (2004), ‘Implementation of a formative assessment model incorporating peer and self-assessment’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41 (3), 273–90. Quellmalz, E.S. (1991), ‘Developing criteria for performance assessments: the missing link’, Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 319–32. Rae, D. (2006), ‘Entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework for technology-based enterprise’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18 (1), 39–56. Rae, D. and M. Carswell (2000), ‘Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences’, Education & Training, 42 (4/5), 220–27. Rauch, A. and M. Frese (2007), ‘Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality approach to entrepreneurship’, in J.R. Baum, M. Frese and R. Baron (eds), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, SIOP Organisational Frontier Series, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sadler, D.R. (1989), ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, 18, 145–65. Sadler-Smith, E., Y. Hampson, I. Chaston and B. Badger (2003), ‘Managerial behaviour, entrepreneurial style, and small firm performance’, Journal of Small Business Management, 41 (1), 47–67. Sapienza, H.J., E. Autio, G. George and S. Zahra (2006), ‘A capabilities perspective on the effects of new venture internationalization on survival and growth’, Academy of Management Review, 31 (4), 911–33. Segers, M., F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (2003), Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, The Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 217–26. Shreeve, A., J. Baldwin and G. Farraday (2004), ‘The limitations of difference. Exploring variation in student conceptions of the link between assessment and learning outcomes’, in C. Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning: Diversity and Inclusivity, Oxford: Oxford Brooks University. Sluijsmans, D. and F. Prins (2006), ‘A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher education’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32 (1), 6–22. Sluijsmans, D., S. Brand-Gruwel, J. van Merriënboer and R. Martens (2004), ‘Training teachers in peerassessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions’, Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 18, 59–78.


67

Stathopoulou, S., D. Psaltopoulos and S. Dimitris (2004), ‘Rural entrepreneurship in Europe: a research framework and agenda’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 10 (6), 404–25. Stiggins, R. (1991), ‘Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 7–12. Taras, M. (2005), ‘Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 53 (4), 466–78. Ucbasaran, D., P. Westhead and M. Wright (2008), ‘Opportunity identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter?’, Small Business Economics, 30 (2), 153–73. Wesselink, R., H.J.A. Biemans, M. Mulder and R. Van der Elsen (2007), ‘Competence-based VET as seen by Dutch researchers’, European Journal of Vocational Training, 40, 38–51. Zhao, H., S.E. Seibert and G.E. Hills (2005), ‘The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1265–72.

PART II HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM DIFFERENCES?

6

Accounting for student/educator diversity: resurrecting coaction theory Colin Jones

Introduction This chapter challenges current approaches to defining the context and process of entrepreneurship education. In modeling our classrooms as a microcosm of the world our current and future students will enter, this chapter brings to life (and celebrates) the everpresent diversity found within. The chapter attempts to make an important (and unique) contribution to the field of enterprise education by illustrating how we can determine the success of (1) our efforts as educators, (2) our students, and (3) our various teaching methods. The chapter is based on two specific premises, the most fundamental being the assertion that the performance of student, educator and institution can only be accounted for by accepting the nature of the dialogic relationship between the student and educator and between the educator and institution. A second premise is that at any moment in time, the educator can be assessed as being either efficient or inefficient, due to the presence of observable heterogeneity in the learning environment that produces differential learning outcomes. This chapter claims that understanding and appreciating the nature of heterogeneity in our classrooms provides an avenue for improvement in all facets of learning and teaching. To explain this claim, Haskell’s (1949) theory of coaction is resurrected to provide a lens through which all manner of interaction occurring within all forms of educational contexts can be explained. Haskell (1949) asserted that coaction theory had three salient features. First, activity in society is typically associated with the presence of diversely powerful individuals, the strong and the weak; in this instance, the lecturer and the student. Second, these two entities can have nine and only, qualitatively different relations toward each other. Third, the major properties of societies vary with coaction. Therefore, within the context of this chapter, if we can understand the nature of the coactions occurring between lecturer and (individual) student and the various contextual factors that govern and influence their behaviour (for example, the lecturer’s teaching philosophy/institutional setting and the students experience and aspirations, and so on), we can progress our ability to continually improve the factors that will most aid enterprise learning outcomes. This chapter suggests several (possible) examples of good and bad educational practice (on the part of the student and educator) that might give rise to the nine specific types of coaction from which either or both parties gain, lose out or remain unaffected. From this discussion several developmental pathways for improved learning and teaching are suggested. Pathways that can be self-diagnosed and acted upon once the nature of the ever-present diversity is accounted for. This discussion is advanced through the modification of Pianka’s (1973) Community Similarity Index to enable the identification of student diversity across the students’ learning preferences, personal aspirations and 71

72


development. The model developed in this chapter provides the means for enterprise educators in any learning context to understand the nature of interaction between all parties that collectively shape the learning environment and provides access to an intellectual pathway of self-improvement. The recently developed hic et nunc learning and teaching framework (see Jones, 2007) is offered as an example of an approach that facilitates the leveraging of student diversity to advance student enterprise learning outcomes. A fundamental component of this framework (which will be explained in detail) is self and group reflection. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. First, the research method used to conduct this (ongoing) research is explained. Second, the hic et nunc learning and teaching framework is briefly introduced. Third, the nature and importance of student diversity is discussed and its identification (within an enterprise context) is illustrated. Fourth the nature of student reflection developed within the hic et nunc process is discussed. Fifth, Haskell’s (1949) theory of coaction is introduced and discussed within the context of different types of enterprise student learning outcomes. Sixth, the seminal work of Alfred Whitehead is introduced to allow the foregoing sections to be united into a more coherent discussion. The chapter concludes with consideration of the implications, vis-à-vis the enterprise educator, that arise from the chapter. Specifically, the possible identification of developmental pathways for educators that include the provision of student diversity. Method The research method used to develop this chapter is twofold. First, the chapter builds on the author’s growing body of work that has relied upon Hayward’s (2000) cycle of reflective practice within which the seminal works of Dewey (1933), Kolb (1984) and Schön (1983; 1987) where successfully integrated. This process of reflective practice is designed to allow the self-reflection of one’s practice with the aim being the development of new knowledge that is personally relevant. During the last six years a continuous cycle of acquiring feedback from multiple sources (Brookfield, 1995), reflecting upon the information received, drawing inferences from that information, developing new patterns of thought and then taking action to alter practice has occurred. Second, several recent ideas related to the types of approaches for teaching entrepreneurship have been tested within the global community of enterprise educators. Using a Delphi approach to draw comment from a purposefully chosen sample of practising enterprise educators, a preliminary conceptual taxonomy was developed using two distinct organizing factors (that is, type of approach and educator’s experience). Feedback for the enterprise educator community has informed the development of a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education coactions. The hic et nunc learning and teaching framework Inspired by the literal Latin conversion of the term, here and now, the hic et nunc framework encourages and enables each individual student to learn in their here and now (Whitehead, 1929), accommodating the development of differing interpretations of the required learning topics. As discussed (see Jones, 2007), a key factor in the learning process has been the provision for continuous student reflection (Tyler, 1949) related to the repeated learning activities that occur during and across fortnightly workshops.

Accounting for student/educator diversity

73

Group sense-making

Theory Game scenario Case study addendum

Student Student presentations Reflection Workshop game Journal Case study discussion

One single case

Major assignment

Final examination

Figure 6.1

The hic et nunc learning and teaching framework

Over time the learning activities have evolved to include games, case study discussion, workshop presentations, and self-reflective diaries and group sense-making activities that are all tied to the topics (that is, theory) introduced cumulatively throughout workshops. The purpose of the learning activities developed and continually refined is to accelerate the ‘process of changing the behaviour patterns . . . [of the students] . . . using behaviour in the broad sense to include thinking and feeling as well as overt action’ (Tyler, 1949, pp. 5–6). A typical configuration of the learning activities (repeated fortnightly) is illustrated in Figure 6.1. The framework is used across several units in both undergraduate and postgraduate enterprise units at the University of Tasmania (UTAS). The framework has been developed to advance two specific aims of enterprise learning at UTAS. One relates to assisting students to be capable of making the journey from student to graduate entrepreneur, and the other (more general) aim relates to helping the students develop the attributes of a reasonable adventurer. Heath (1964) defines the reasonable adventurer as a graduated student capable of making his or her own opportunities for satisfaction. A disposition argued to be a necessary precondition for engaging in entrepreneurial behaviours. Within the hic et nunc framework, processes are repetitive and typically commence with the introduction of new theory that is applied by the students across the various learning activities. An essential assumption is that students have the capacity to alter their habits of thought from one workshop to the next. Before we proceed to the main focus of the chapter (that is, the importance of student diversity), let us consider this assumption in more detail. The modification of student habits and thoughts In the context of the above discussion, the view that student interaction within a particular learning environment would result in the sorting of students by specific (learning or skill) traits as ordered by the assessment procedures they encounter, is rejected. Rather it is assumed that regardless of the distribution of student learning outcomes, the learning environment will not remain unaltered through such interaction. As previously discussed (see Jones, 2005), it is assumed that change internal to the student (that is, habits

74


of thought) and its behavioural expression (that is, phenotypic expression) is possible due to interaction with a learning environment. The process begins with the interaction between a student as an individual and as a group member within the learning environment. During this first period of time, each student and his or her group will engage in various learning activities, which will be assessed using both summative and formative feedback. During the process of assessment, the fitness of the routines used individually by each student and by his or her group will be assessed. Such routines represent the activity systems responsible for phenotypic expression (for example, the content and context of the student’s/group’s performance and associated identity projected for consumption by the assessors). As a consequence, the habits of thought of each student are subject to differential selection (for or against) on the basis of their contribution to the phenotypic expression of the individual and/or group. A combination of freedom (Whitehead, 1929) and reflection (Tyler, 1949) then provide the means through which the group, and therefore individuals, may alter behaviours via a shift in their collective and separate habits of thought. This process of group and individual change is facilitated in the first instance by the summative information received (that is, a grading) and then by the formative information that relates to both negative and positive aspects of the group’s/individual’s performance. Therefore, the various assessment procedures used act as selection mechanisms. This process of generating both summative and formative assessment performs two important functions. First, the summative feedback provides an indication of the immediate fitness of the group’s/individual’s performance vis-à-vis the assessment criteria at a particular moment in time. Second, the formative feedback provides feedback through which future change is possible. So the ‘difference between them is that at some point the judgement has to be final’ (Biggs, 2003, p. 142). The other factor that influences the composition of the interacting elements is that of the internally held perceptions within the group that may be altered to produce many different outcomes. So, three forms of inheritance are possible and likely throughout this process. First, the students’ habits of thought (derived from their habits of life) are subject to revision as they determine what mental capabilities will best assist their progress. Altered habits of thought are then inherited (or transferred) from one learning environment (that is, each workshop) to the next either via individual student behaviour or through their contribution to their group. Second, those aspects of the modified phenotypic expression (deemed to be favourable) and related to any changed habits of thought, are inherited by the groups from one learning environment to the next. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the behaviours of the individuals and the groups has the potential to alter the nature of future interaction between the learning environment and all entities to be assessed. This is the central thesis of the niche construction concept (see Olding-Smee et al., 2003); it provides a process through which students can alter their learning environment within their time and space and/or at least place pressure on the learning environment within their time and space. The discussion now turns towards the importance of student diversity. Student diversity While students can learn as individuals, within the learning context discussed here, it is argued that interaction with others has the potential to greatly advance learning outcomes. Acknowledging the overall increasing presence of student diversity within the

Accounting for student/educator diversity Table 6.1

75

Student diversity across four separate units Statistics

N

Valid Missing Mean Std error of mean Std deviation Variance Range Minimum Maximum

BMA333

BMA213

BMA787

BMA505

189 1242 .4750 .01361 .18713 .035 1.00 .00 1.00

1296 135 .4465 .00505 .18195 .033 1.00 .00 1.00

1431 0 .4931 .00455 .17193 .030 1.00 .00 1.00

78 1353 .4655 .01952 .17236 .030 .75 .13 .88

higher education sector (Biggs, 2003), provides educators with a unique opportunity. Building upon past research that highlights the relationship between increased student learning outcomes from exposure to higher levels of student diversity (Gurin, 1999), the hic et nunc framework deliberately uses student diversity in a positive way. Within the hic et nunc framework student diversity is conceived to be more than a construct related to social and ethnic origins. An index of student similarity has been developed to identify a level of diversity within a single class (and therefore also between classes). Adapted from Pianka’s (1973) ecological Community Similarity Index,1 the Student Similarity Index is also expressed as X/N, where X is the number of student traits common to each pair of students and N is the total number of student traits. Within this approach, eight traits have been employed across three separate areas: (1) the background of the student (for example, age, origin and area of study; (2) current situation of the student (for example, work commitments, effort committed to study, and personal aspirations; and (3) the approach to learning of the student (learning style and learning personality). For example, when the index is applied to four enterprise units taught at UTAS in semester 1, 2008, it can be observed (see Table 6.1) that within each class student diversity ranges from approximately 44.5 per cent to 49.5per cent. Importantly, while it can immediately be seen that the level of student similarity is quite low due to the differences across the eight traits examined, it is not apparent how the classes might differ. In Figure 6.2 we are able to confirm the degree to which the nature of student diversity in the four units differs and/or is similar. A useful method of analysis to tease out how the enterprise units (that is, BMA 333, 213, 787 and 505) might differ is canonical discriminant analysis. Using the individual units as a dependent categorical variable, we can test the relationship between each unit and eight independent variables (noted previously as age, origin, area of study, work commitments, effort committed to study, personal aspirations, learning style and learning personality). Simply put, statistically, there is a highly significant difference between the examined units across a combination (that is, discriminant functions) of the following variables; maturity (that is, age), student type (that is, origin), work commitments and learning style. These variables (illustrated in the structure matrix in Table 6.2) provide insights

76

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Canonical discriminant functions Cohort Laun-Hob213 Hob787 Hob333 Hob505 Group Centroid

4

2

Function 2

Hob787 Laun-Hob213

0 Hob333 Hob505

–2

–4 –4

Figure 6.2 Table 6.2

–2

0 Function 1

2

4

Comparison of student diversity Structure matrix Function

Mature Aspirationsa Work StudentTYPE Approacha Facultya Efforta LearningSTYLE Gendera Male Female

1

2

3

.894* .040* .117 .323 .114 .137 .072 .235 .081 .081

.081 2.008 .819* 2.646* 2.206* 2.195* .165* .142 .033 .033

2.097 2.028 2.357 2.177 .081 2.073 .086 .899* .120* .120*

Notes: Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant functions. Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function. * Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function. a. This variable not used in the analysis.

into the varied composition of each unit that give rise to specific and unique levels of student diversity in each unit. While essentially all of the variance of the model is explained by the first two discriminant functions (see Table 6.3), the Wilks’ Lambda values indicate that all four variables are useful within the model. The association between the discriminant scores and the

Accounting for student/educator diversity Table 6.3

77

Eigenvalues and Wilks’ Lambda Eigenvalues

Function 1 2 3 Note:

Eigenvalue

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Canonical correlation

.606a .490a .012a

54.7 44.3 1.0

54.7 99.0 100.0

.614 .574 .107

a. First 3 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Wilks’ Lambda Test of function(s)

Wilks’ Lambda

Chi-square

df

Sig.

1 through 3 2 through 3 3

.413 .663 .989

264.381 122.753 3.423

12 6 2

.000 .000 .181

units are strongly correlated, as evidenced by the level of the Eigenvalues. The incorporated chi-square statistic tests the extent that the means of the functions used are equal across the units investigated. The small significance value indicates that the discriminant function does better than chance at separating the units. Thus, the educator is able to construct a diversity profile for each class and to compare how different classes compare. Essentially, the elephant in the room is revealed and its character identified. Importantly, the students can be informed of the nature of the diversity in the room and this recognition forms an important part of their preparation for the reflection exercises. Student reflection The process of reflection is considered a critical element of the hic et nunc framework because ‘learning takes place through the reactions he [or she] makes to the environment in which he [or she] is placed’ (Tyler, 1949, p. 63). Therefore, student reflection on their participation in presentations, games and case study discussion is strongly encouraged. This is facilitated through a journal entry shortly after each workshop. The reflection journals aim to provide students with the opportunity to pause and reflect on how they as individuals feel about their contribution and outcomes achieved across the various learning activities during the workshops. How are they doing with the development of a successful strategy for the workshop game? How are they participating in the case study discussion? Students are encouraged to consider what they have learnt about themselves during the period from one workshop to the next. As the semester progresses, they are encouraged to engage in meta-reflection and consider how they have altered their approach and attitudes during the semester. This is a vital process that allows the students to take stock of their behaviours and consider what personal changes are required to improve or maintain their individual outcomes.

78


Recently, the hic et nunc framework has been complemented by the addition of another reflective exercise. The group sense-making exercise aims to allow a deeper appreciation of not only personal feelings, but also appreciation of the feelings of other students in the class. The process is completed through four phases. A situation statement is developed by the educator and distributed to the student body for consideration. The situation statement is designed to elicit deep reflection from each student in phase 1. The four phases are as follows: Phase 1. The student identifies and records their personal feelings related to the ‘situation statement’. It is quite likely they may experience more than one feeling. Conflicting feelings and/or those feelings that change over time should be noted. It is important that they do not only note the assumed or described feelings, but also their actual feelings. Phase 2. The students (as a group) attempt to make sense of the context in the situation statement, now using the perspectives of all involved group members. They use the identified feelings to develop a sense of meaning vis-à-vis the collective feelings reported by the group members. This analysis may incorporate an exploration of personal beliefs, dispositions, experiences and attitudes. They typically conclude by speculating as to the meaning others attributed to the situation based on the collective feelings reported. Phase 3. Each individual student now attempts to validate their analysis of the situation by asking for feedback from other (external) participants, peers and so on. In other words, the meaning attributed to the situation is confirmed with reference to the ideas and perspectives of others and/or through personal reflection of their own personal experiences. Phase 4. Each student indicates how reflection of the situation has influenced their approach and/or perspective to this specific issue. Any possible shift in values, beliefs and/or attitudes is also noted. The following comments are representative comments of students currently using both forms of reflective practice. I would say that the reflection exercises allowed me to see from a 3rd person perspective my beliefs and attitudes. In relation to personal learning, this allowed me to easily criticize my learning patterns, and realize what needs to be fixed. In relation to group behavior, it allowed me to see what others might think of my behavior. (Anonymous student no. 1) The reflection journals helped me consolidate what my strengths and areas for improvement were in reference to the course. The group situation statements were beneficial. They helped us to work in groups and effectively convey our feelings and ideas whilst enabling our entrepreneurial capacity. (Anonymous student no. 2) After those experiential learning exercises I gain great insight into myself from the group sense making process. I have found it to be insightful, clarifying and helpful for me personally. I imagine that it will not only be me who benefits from this reflection exercise, but the lecturer will also gain a greater understanding of my personal learning outcomes than if I didn’t complete the reflection. (Anonymous student no. 3) From my experience the group sense making helped me to broaden my view of the subject. For example, after reading the other members of my group’s phase one I had other perspectives I had not thought of but still either agreed with or could understand where


79

they were coming from. Also, if what I had written in my phase one was echoed by other members of my group, then I felt more confident that I was on the right track. I think the reflections also give the educator valuable insight into how the student is feeling and how they perceive their learning to be progressing. (Anonymous student no. 4) The use of reflective learning has allowed for a heightened personal learning experience. It requires a more deep level of thought on self which makes the student more aware of how they are going and to look both more critically at the work completed as well as the positive achievement that has been had not in terms of marks but in a more personal way. (Anonymous student no. 5)

These comments highlight the genuine benefits generated from the process to both student and educator. Rather than merely allowing the student to reflect, the provision of group sense-making allows multiple perspectives to be shared by students and the educator. The diversity within the student cohort is used to increase the individual student’s learning outcomes. Given the learner-centred nature of the hic et nunc framework, such insight is invaluable to the facilitator and provides access to the nature of the varied coactions occurring in the learning environment. Coaction theory In 1949 Edward Haskell published his landmark ‘A clarification of social science’ in which he further developed his theory of coaction. Developed over the previous seven years, his coaction theory sought to separate diversely powerful individuals into the weak and the strong. Essentially, Haskell observed that weak and strong ‘classes can only have nine, and only nine, qualitatively different [coaction] relations toward each other’ (1949, p. 46). An adaptation of Haskell’s clarification scheme is illustrated in Figure 6.3. In Figure 6.3, a range of possible outcomes for both the lecturer and/or student are possible. Given an acceptance that we can indeed determine the nature of diversity within our student cohorts, we can now develop a greater appreciation of the nature of outcomes for both the lecturer and/or student. The only type of interaction between lecturer and student that is mutually beneficial is symbiosis (that is, 1 1). Another closely related form of interaction is commensalism (that is, 1 0) whereby the student gains from the interaction and the lecturer is unaffected by the experience. On this basis, the interaction between lecturer and student must at a very minimum lead to a gain for the student and no loss to the educator, any of the other seven interaction outcomes would be suboptimal. This discussion now turns to the integration of the author’s preliminary views of possible approaches to enterprise education as contrasted to the level of experience of the educator. In Figure 6.4, the interaction outcomes of several approaches are offered for the purpose of creating a provocative discussion. In keeping with the past works of Gibb (for example, 2002), this chapter adopts the view that enterprise education should seek to advance student learning outcomes by the means of educating through and for (and/or in) enterprise, rather than merely about enterprise. This discussion also assumes the context of a programme of enterprise study, rather than an introductory (or single) unit about enterprise. The suggested coaction outcomes noted in Figure 6.4 do not represent an exhaustive analysis of outcomes associated with the proposed possible approaches to enterprise education. A limitation of the proposed taxonomy of entrepreneurship education coactions is its development around only

80


L

–

STUDENT 0

+

+

–+ Predation

0+ Allotrophy

++ Symbiosis

0

–0 Amensalism

00 Neutrality

+0 Commensalism

–

–– Synnecrosis

0– Allolimy

+– Parasitism

0 + –

Figure 6.3

Indicates neutral interaction outcomes Indicates positive interaction outcomes Indicates negative interaction outcomes

An adaptation of Haskell’s coaction theory APPROACH

E

Figure 6.4

Through (or in)

For (or in)

about

Much

++ Mentor

++ Facilitator

–– Hero

Little

++ Role model

++ Co-reflector

–0 Master of ceremonies

None

–– Harbour master

–0 Ringmaster

–– Textbook jockey

Possible approaches versus suggested interaction outcomes


81

two organizing factors, the approach of the individual and the experience of the individual. Feedback from the first round of the Delphi approach highlighted other factors (for example, internal limitations placed upon the educator, the commercial versus academic experience of the educator, the motivations and development of the student, and so on) that would need to eventually be incorporated into a more complete model. That said, there was solid initial support for the framework from enterprise educators who provided comment upon the preliminary taxonomy. Of most interest was the frequequent comment that it encouraged self-reflection of individual practice. Let us first consider the nature of the taxonomy, starting with consideration of the organizing factors. First, the approach: through enterprise = experiential forms of education through which an attempt is made to bring to reality the business idea of an individual/group (that is, a focus on commercialization). For (and/or in) enterprise = experiential forms of education within which individual students develop enterprise skills/attitudes using repeated forms of reflective practice (that is, a focus on personal development). About enterprise = forms of education in which the focus in on the communication of theoretical principles and/or an understanding of the achievements of other persons (that is, a focus on learning principles). Second, the educator’s experience: much experience = the educator has vast experience engaging in new enterprise (that is, any new form of enterprise vis-à-vis their social surrounds) using their own resources. Little experience = the educator has past experience engaging in new enterprise (that is, any new form of enterprise vis-à-vis their social surrounds) using someone else’s resources. No experience = the educator has not engaged in any forms of new enterprise (that is, any new form of enterprise vis-à-vis their social surrounds). The nine types of enterprise educators and their suggested coaction outcomes are discussed below. For the purposes of developing a taxonomy that prompts debate and lively discussion, extreme positions are illustrated and consideration is not given (at this stage) to the quite likely relationships between the types. The textbook jockey: the educator tends to be guided by a set of desirable (and common) learning outcomes that have been developed for mass consumption by students in many different (unrelated) locations. The student is exposed to a lecturercentred approach in which structured topics are delivered in accordance with the chapter structure of the text adopted. The aspiration of the students’ are essentially left undiscovered. Therefore, neither the student nor the educator gain (in any meaningful way) from the interaction (that is, 2 2) and indeed suffer an opportunity cost (that is, opportunity lost to learn and/or educate). The ringmaster: the educator sees the value of personal development but lacks an appreciation of the psychological issues associated with entrepreneurship; he or she acts vicariously through the latent potential of his or her students. He or she does not have a sufficient capacity to understand the reality of the students’ journey. Therefore, the student has lost the opportunity reflect upon and develop enterprise skills/attributes and the educator is none the wiser for the experience (that is, 2 0). The harbour master: the educator wishes to create opportunities for students to follow their dreams but has not the ability to mentor the process. The students are ‘cast to the wolves’ without protection or guidance once they travel beyond the knowledge/skill of the educator. Therefore, the students are potentially harmed by

82

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education the experience and the educator (that is, his or her reputation) is also potentially harmed by the feedback of the students (that is, 2 2). The master of ceremonies: the educator tries to assist students learning from textbased sources and by introducing an array of entrepreneurs to the students to interact with. While the students may draw inspiration from the entrepreneurs they meet, they are not developing enterprising skills/attributes. Likewise, the educator’s performance is neither harmed nor enhanced (that is, 2 0). The co-reflector: the educator is side by side on a personal development journey, they understand the excitement, fear and other feelings associated with preparing oneself to manage risk. Sense is made through communication that is learner-centred. There are multiple opportunities for reflective behaviours. In this instance it is quite likely that both the educator and the student gain from the nature of this interaction (that is, 1 1). The role model: the educator allows students to share the journey of new enterprise together, guiding the way and assisting access to vital resources. There are tangible outcomes being pursued by all and learning is occurring through a shared journey. There are multiple opportunities for reflective behaviours. Again, it is quite likely that both the student and the educator gain from their interaction (that is, 1 1). The hero: the educator wastes his or her vast knowledge by focusing on their own past achievements and trying to use them as a mechanism for student learning. The process is lecturer centred with the aspirations of the student not progressed. Neither the student or educator gain from this interaction (that is, 2 2). The facilitator: the educator creates learning opportunities for the student to engage in that enable knowledge to be contextualized (that is, student placements). The individual needs of each student are aligned to specific learning environs and there are multiple opportunities for reflective behaviours. Clearly, there is a strong likelihood that both the student and educator will benefit from the interaction (that is, 1 1). The mentor: the educator works alongside the individual student (or group of students) using his or her experience to assist the student to commercialize their business idea. Again, there is a strong likelhood that both the student and the educator will benefit from the interaction (that is, 1 1).

Hidden within the taxonomy are suggested development pathways. For example, an educator may move from textbook jockey to co-reflector, to facilitator, and eventually towards a mentor as they develop more personal experience and confidence. The following section introduces the ideas of Alfred Whitehead to enable the various issues discussed throughout the chapter thus far to be united. Uniting ideas For Whitehead (1929, p.93), the development of students with a zest for life and an ability to apply with intellectual imagination their acquired wisdom to all future tasks was the basic role of any university. The role of the university is to preserve ‘the connection between knowledge and the zest of life’. The ultimate aim of education should be the development of an urge within our students towards new creative adventure. Merely learning about things (that is, inert ideas) must be avoided at all cost. What is required is a focus on a few large ideas that, when taken together, form principles from which one


83

may eventually generalize. For Whitehead, the issue is how knowledge is used, and specifically the time and place within which it is contextualized. He states that: The mind is never passive; it is a perpetual activity, delicate, receptive, responsive to stimulus. You cannot postpone its life until after you have sharpened it. Whatever interest attaches to your subject-matter must be evoked here and now; whatever powers you are strengthening in the pupil, must be exercised here and now; whatever possibilities of mental life your teaching should impart, must be exhibited here and now. That is the golden rule of education, and a very difficult one to follow. (1929, p. 6, my emphasis)

Therefore, the role of the educator is to elicit energy and excitement by resonance of his or her personality. If we are to accept that the educator will confront a diverse range of students, this suggests there will be multiple coactions occurring with any learning situation. However, the challenge is to create a process of (self-)discovery to ensure that the ‘general ideas give an understanding to that stream of events which pour through his [or her] life’ (Whitehead, 1929, p. 2). Thus far, several ideas have been presented for the reader’s consideration. It is the contention of this chapter that a learning and teaching framework (as illustrated by the hic et nunc framework) that allows students to learn in a highly reflective manner in their here and now is a fundamental requirement for effective enterprise learning. Further, that any such approach be capable of identifying, accommodating and leveraging student diversity as fundamental property of the learning environment. That individual/group reflection is used in such a way as to (1) allow students to modify their thoughts/behaviour across time, and (2) enable the educator to fully appreciate the diverse range of coactions occurring within the learning environment. Adopting the ideas of Whitehead (1929) draws the educator into a journey biased in favour of the student. Yet, in only four of the educator types in Figure 6.4, are positive gains assumed. This possibly suggests the need for enterprise educators to consider the manner in which they might create a developmental pathway (or movement) toward these types. The remainder of this chapter concludes by addressing the challenges of such movement. Discussion and conclusion The dialogic nature of entrepreneurship (Bruyat and Julien, 2001) has been considered, and it is the contention of this chapter that this dialogic principle provides an interesting avenue of sense-making vis-à-vis the above discussion. Incorporating Bruyat and Julien’s reasoning with coaction logic leads us to accept that the two entities under consideration (that is, the educator and the student) form a system that cannot be separated if we are to understand the system. Thus, the original premise upon which this chapter was founded: that the performance of student, educator and/or institution can only be accounted for by accepting the nature of the dialogic relationship between the student and educator and the educator and institution. Through balancing the ideas contained within coaction theory and the analysis of student diversity (detailed within this chapter), several issues emerge. The first relates to the capacity of the educator to plot a way forward to improve their own outcomes along with those of their students. Given that we are unlikely to be able to fully satisfy the individual learning needs contained within any particular cohort (due to ever-present diversity), there may be a need to adopt several different strategies. For example, knowledge

84


of one’s own capacities and the nature of the learning activities could influence the screening in (and out) of students most suited to a particular enterprise programme. Alternatively, the degree of student choice (vis-à-vis their participation in learning activities) could be increased to enable different students to engage in the required learning activities in a manner most suited to their disposition. Another issue is how we determine the nature of educator experience. Hegarty and Jones (2008) argue against the traditional enterprise = business philosophy (as the assumed outcome) in the provision of enterprise education in higher education. Advocating alternative student outcomes (for example, the development of the enterprising mind and/or the reasonable adventurer), their argument also potentially changes the nature of how we categorize an enterprise educator’s experience. If we step back from the romantic notion of the business landscape, to occupy a broader entrepreneurial landscape, many other facets of life can be accounted for as enterprising experience. For example, has the educator developed an innovative programme within a conservative (or traditional) educational environment? Has the educator demonstrated a capacity for challenging the status quo, or risk management in broader society? Once the business context is removed from the central domain of enterprise education to but one of several contextual domains, we can potentially release more enterprising experience into the classroom. Importantly, the issue of failure (in its many forms) can be injected into the educational process with the educator able to share retrospectively past events that have not produced intended outcomes. Thus, it is easier to enable win/win outcomes to occur when we change the rules of the game. Enterprise is not first and foremost about business, it is about a mindset, that may (or may not) produce a business outcome. From this perspective, the educator can introduce a variety of learning equations into the students’ pathway acting as a mentor, role model, co-reflector or facilitator (and combinations of). Now it is the reflective capacity of the student and educator, operating in their here and now that determines learning outcomes. Gone is the pressure to follow a prescribed process towards business success. Success becomes a concept that can be defined at the level of the individual vis-à-vis the nature of coaction with various entities (for example, fellow classmates or the lecturer/s they encounter). In summary, this chapter has argued the case for identifying, measuring and leveraging student diversity to increase the individual (and therefore collective) learning outcomes of students studying enterprise. The hic et nunc learning and teaching framework has been offered for consideration as a process that celebrates student diversity using both self and group reflection. The contention is that it is through the modification of thought that students can truly navigate the challenging landscape that is enterprise education. In order to facilitate any such modification, the educator must ensure that positive coactions are possible between the student and educator. Therefore, in a sense, the educator must adopt the role of stage manager in constructing the learning environment. The performance this entails may require our presence, but is also quite likely to proceed with us in the wings, on hand to lend support as required. Finally, having acknowledged the limitation of using only two organizing factors (that is, the approach and experience of the educator), the next step is to develop a more complex taxonomy of entrepreneurship education coactions; a taxonomy that incorporates other factors such as the limitations placed upon the educator, broader forms of


85

educator experience, the motivations and development of the student. Until then, the issue of student diversity is offered for broader consideration. Note 1. Pianka’s index is simply X/N, where X is the number of sub-populations common to two towns and N is the total number of sub-populations occurring in either; thus community similarity equals 1 when two towns are identical, and 0 when they share no sub-populations.

References Biggs, J. (2003), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham: Open University Press. Brookfield, S. (1995), Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bruyat, C. and P.A. Julien (2001), ‘Defining the field of entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (2), 165–80. Dewey, J. (1933), How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. Gibb, A.A. (2002), ‘Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity’, Industry & Higher Education, 16 (3), 135–48. Gurin, P. (1999), ‘New research on the benefits of diversity in college and beyond: an empirical analysis’, Diversity Digest, vol. 5, Association of American Colleges and Universities. Haskell, E.F. (1949), ‘A clarification of social science’, Main Currents in Modern Thought, 7, 45–51. Hayward, L.M. (2000), ‘Becoming a self-reflective teacher: A meaningful research process’, Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 14 (1), 21–30. Heath, R. (1964), The Reasonable Adventurer, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hegarty, C. and C. Jones (2008), ‘Graduate entrepreneurship: more than child’s play’, Education 1 Training, 50 (7), 626–37. Jones, C. (2005), ‘Creating employability skills: modification through interaction’, Journal of Industry and Higher Education, 19 (1), 25–34. Jones, C. (2007), ‘Creating the reasonable adventurer: the co-evolution of student and learning environment’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 228–40. Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Mahwah, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Olding-Smee, F.J., K.N. Laland and M.W. Feldman (2003), Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution, Oxford: Princetown University Press. Pianka, E. (1973), ‘The structure of lizard communities’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 53–74. Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tyler, R.W. (1949), Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Whitehead, A.F. (1929), The Aims of Education and Others Essays, New York: Free Press.

7

Small business education in a grande nation: antinomy, opportunity or both? A French grande école case study Jacqueline Fendt and Sylvain Bureau

Introduction Entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a powerful stimulus for value creation at individual, company and societal levels. Within companies, entrepreneurial action results in product, service, process and administrative innovations (Covin and Miles, 1999; Schumpeter, 1934). From such actions then emerges strategic renewal (Hitt et al., 1999) and different types of value for various stakeholders (Hitt et al., 2001). To society, entrepreneurship contributes such through employment creation (Birley, 1986), technological progress, economic revitalization (Birley, 1986; Zahra, 2005) and cultural change (Gudeman, 1992; Inglehart and Baker, 2000). It is not surprising, therefore, that business schools worldwide are increasingly interested to facilitate their students’ access to this alternative to the classical corporate executive career. Still, entrepreneurship, and more so entrepreneurship education, are relatively young fields of study, dating from the 1950s (Schumpeter, 1953), but reaching serious dimensions from the early 1980s on and until the present day. Over 1600 entrepreneurship programs had been developed worldwide by the year 2000 (Katz, 2003) and the number is increasing. The large majority of the body of research on the subject is Anglo-Saxon, with a crushing US dominance. And what about France? How are we doing in entrepreneurship? Is it (still) true that the French rather pursue managerial and administrative careers, that the French educational system stifles entrepreneurial dynamics, and that the French generally lack entrepreneurial mentality? This study describes a recent experimental entrepreneurship education project at a Paris grande école business school. We first scan extant literature to identify significant themes of contemporary entrepreneurship, and key current universal open questions and preoccupations, We then focus on France’s undergraduate system: we discuss an a priori risk of antimony between the emergence of small business entrepreneurs and the radically elite-focused French management development system (for example, Carayannis et al., 2003; Denis, 2007; Fayolle, 2000b; Klapper, 2005; Locke, 1984; Martz Jr et al., 2005; Torrès, 2001). We also outlines some distinct opportunities that the system bears within it (for example, Chadeau, 1993; Fayolle, 2000a; Fendt et al., 2008; Lasch and Yami, 2008; Marchesnay, 2007; Torrès, 2001, 2007; Valentin, 1994). In a second and principal part we introduce, analyse and conceptualize an entrepreneurship education experience from a French grande école business school, a graduate-level major of 150 class-hours, explicitly designed to defuse some of the stated French system-inherent apparent dichotomies, on the one hand, and to enhance some of the system-inherent advantages, on the other. A qualitative, single case study design was adopted because of its power to develop theories inductively by uncovering the complexities of social phenomena and recurrent 86

Small business education in a grande nation

87

patterns of relationships among underlying concepts (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1984). The experience is analysed through the prisms of such different types of stakeholders as the students, the business school, the faculty, investors and entrepreneurs (be they alumni or not), and corporate partners. In addition to the analysis of the school’s classical evaluation systems (immediate and deferred standard student satisfaction questionnaires), five in-depth narrative interviews were performed and analysed, and four stakeholderspecific feedback meetings were held. Interview and meeting analysis included some coding, sorting and memoing, but especially intensive discussion among faculty and a number of particularly committed external stakeholders involved in the program. Other, more tangible parameters such as results at business plan competitions, projects admitted to incubators, projects financed and number of companies created were also taken into account, as we conclude, for now, with some insights and ideas for further inquiry. This is a work in progress. Entrepreneurship education today Significant emergence of entrepreneurship education as a distinct field began in the 1980s (Kuratko, 2005; Zeithaml and Rice, 1987). Downstream value chain issues such as venture capital, angel financing and other financing techniques, emerged in the 1990s (Dimov and Shepherd, 2005; Shepherd and Zacharakis, 2001; 2002). However, for a field to be taught, there should be some kind of consensus of what exactly it entails. This does however not seem to be the case for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a ‘widely dispersed, loosely connected domain of issues’ (Ireland and Webb, 2007), a ‘mosaic of issues to be explored’ (Zahra, 2005, p. 254). It displays eclectic and pervasive benefits and for that reason attracts scholars from diverse disciplines, for example, accounting, anthropology, economics, finance, management, marketing, operations management, political science, psychology and sociology. The domains of management and of entrepreneurship are often compared and are defined today as neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive. Their relationship is described as overlapping (Ireland et al., 2003). The former is considered more opportunity-driven, the latter is more resource- and ‘conversation’driven (Ireland et al., 2003). The relation between strategy and entrepreneurship is sometimes discussed. Entrepreneurial strategies have been identified and shown to have important common denominators, issues and trade-offs between entrepreneurship and strategy (Hitt et al., 2001) and this has yielded the field of strategic entrepreneurship, a unique distinct construct through which companies can create wealth. It is composed of an entrepreneurial mindset, an entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial leadership, and of the ‘strategic management of resources and creativity to develop innovations’ (Ireland et al., 2003, p. 963). Corporate entrepreneurship and the need for internal corporate venturing have also gained much attention during the past decade (Kuratko et al., 2001; 2005; Miles and Covin, 2002; Morris and Kuratko, 2002; Zahra et al., 1999). On a micro-level, many diverse types of entrepreneurs and the equally diverse methods they use to achieve success have motivated much research on psychological aspects (Kickul and Gundry, 2002). Such concepts as entrepreneurial spirit, entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial culture are growing area of interest all over the world (McDougall and Oviatt, 2003; Zahra et al., 2001). The concept of risk and trade-offs in entrepreneurship – particularly its demanding and stressful nature – have also been intensely researched (McGrath et al., 1992). Women and minority entrepreneurs have emerged

88


and been inquired. They appear to face different kinds of obstacles and opportunities (Chaganti and Greene, 2002; Greene et al., 2003; Gundry and Welsch, 2001). On the macro-level, the economic and social contributions of entrepreneurs, of new companies, of small and midsize enterprises (SMEs) and of family businesses has been shown to be disproportionately high regarding employment creation, innovation, and economic renewal, compared with the contributions of top 500 companies (Chrisman et al., 2003; Upton et al., 2001). Last but not least, ethics and entrepreneurship, sustainable entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship have become a fast-growing area of research, partly due to recent scandals occurring in large corporations, partly due to an increased conscientization regarding ecological and societal issues (Kuratko and Goldsby, 2004; Morris et al., 2002). These principal preoccupations and open questions in contemporary entrepreneurship education are summarized in Table 7.1. Entrepreneurship education in France In France, we like to attribute entrepreneurship as a concept to Jean-Baptiste Say. In his Traité d’économie politique (1803), Say proposes principles for successful entrepreneurial action. However, Say and his disciples soon focused more on the need for entrepreneurs to efficiently manage assets and employees (Facchini, 2007). This more managerial, administrative approach has led to the emergence of a new industrial positivism, where managers are trained in management science, and this philosophy has coined French business schools ever since. It is often claimed that the French do not have an entrepreneurial culture for various reasons and that, since entrepreneurship is necessary for economic prosperity, their mentalities need to change (Arlotto and Bourcieu, 2002; Arlotto et al., 2007; Torrès and Eminet, 2005). We question whether this claim is still entirely valid today. Recent studies confirm that a large majority of respondents consider being an entrepreneur, and/or to change occupations several times during a lifetime, are the best way to have an interesting professional life (Duhamel and Teinturier, 2004). Similarly, Leger-Jarniou (2009) finds that seven out of ten 16- to 24-year-old French college and graduate students (both business and non-business) consider entrepreneurship as a possible career path. Something is indeed happening: as the French government is increasingly making the link between solidarity and economic performance, a kind of ‘directive’ entrepreneurial spirit is spreading and leading to all manners of support structures geared to facilitating company creation. Today, France is doing reasonably well in company creation but the created companies are having a solid survival and growth problem. In 2002, business shut downs have nullified 91 per cent of the company creations (these 9 per cent net company creations compare, for example, to 20 per cent for Germany and Italy, 60 per cent for Poland and 90 per cent for the Czech Republic (Filion and Bourion, 2008, p. 7). We shall not study this French societal evolution vis-à-vis entrepreneurship in detail, but limit our discussion to the French higher education system. We purport that while the mindset in society may or may not be changing toward a better acceptance of entrepreneurship, the educational system is not. And thus it remains largely inappropriate – if not unpropitious – to training entrepreneurs (Beranger et al. 1998). Indeed, in France, if a person has a higher education degree, the probability that he or she will create his or her own company is 50 per cent, compared with unskilled citizens (INSEE, 1997). In the USA, qualified and unqualified people are equally likely to create their own company (US current

Small business education in a grande nation Table 7.1

89

Principles and preoccupations in contemporary entrepreneurship education literature

Theme

Scholars

General, macro-level issues National differences; lack of public knowledge on entrepreneurship, (leading to?) poor entrepreneurial spirit, (leading to?) poor entrepreneurship education system; therefore long-term nationwide awarenessbuilding is needed For micro- and macro-level reasons there are many different types of entrepreneurs, and they need to learn different skills; gender issues; ethnic aspects; consequences for education Characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality

Student age at which entrepreneurship education should start; early sensitization

Baldassari (2008); APCE (2008); OCDE (2006)

Aronsson (2004); Kickul and Gundry (2002); Chaganti and Greene (2002); Greene et al (2003); Gundry and Welsch (2001) Hills (1988); Hood and Young (1993); Ronstadt (1987); Scott and Twomey (1998) Béchard and Grégoire (2005); Cox et al. (2002)

Definitional aspects: what is entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship and management are not the same, entrepreneurship is an educational field in its own right Entrepreneurship and management are quite the same; they overlap considerably; the former is opportunity driven, the latter is resource driven Preoccupations with systematization of entrepreneurship education; content, methods, and so on Education problematic, since entrepreneurship research remains a ‘widely dispersed, loosely connected domain of issues’ (p. 891) widely examined from each scholar’s home discipline. Suggest multi-theoretic, -methodic and -disciplinary approaches Insufficient, ambiguous research on outcome of education efforts, inconsistencies in findings (perhaps due to temporal artifacts?), little known about venture exit and outcome, little data from outside the USA. Distinguish education about entrepreneurship from education for entrepreneurship, and measure results accordingly Curricula to include all forms of entrepreneurship, for example, intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, corporate venturing With move from ‘pioneering’ and ‘survival’ status to a legitimized field, entrepreneurship education risks maturity trap; complacency, stagnation, espousing of orthodoxy

Gartner and Vesper (1994); Gartner et al. (1992); McKelvey (2004) Gosling and Mintzberg (2006); Ireland et al. (2003) Béchard (1994); Béchard and Grégoire (2005); Katz (2003) Ireland and Webb (2007)

Matlay (2008); Dickson et al. (2008)

Leger-Jarniou (2009)

Kuratko et al. (2001); Miles and Covin (2002); Morris and Kuratko (2002); Zahra et al. (1999; 2001) Kuratko (2005); Katz (2003); Stevenson (2000); Solomon et al. (2002)

90


Table 7.1

(continued)

Theme

Scholars

Sociocultural, behavioral issues: entrepreneurial spirit Social and economic impact of entrepreneurship, why should we teach it better and more

Béchard and Grégoire (2005); Tracey and Phillips (2007); Chrisman et al. (2003) Cultural, cross-cultural issues in entrepreneurship Carayannis et al. (2003); Jones and education Spicer (2005) Anderson and Smith (2007); Moral, ethical imperatives; entrepreneurial attitude, Buchholz and Rosenthal (2005); spirit; trade-offs; personal risk-taking issues; Kuratko (2004); Padgett (2005); pedagogical ethics of information value and mutual Useem, (1996, 2001) Janney (2002); responsibility Kuratko (1996) McGrath et al. (1992); McDougall and Oviatt (2003); Katz et al. (2000) Entrepreneurship education today ignores three education Béchard and Grégoire (2005) preoccupations: social-cognitive, psycho-cognitive and spiritualist/ethical Methods, practices, tools Academia versus business incongruence; how much theory, how much practice, how much pedagogy; structured versus unstructured pedagogy; skills teaching versus experimentation; relevance gap Entrepreneurship can be learned and facilitated but not taught; experiential learning; action learning; situated learning are recommended approaches Teaching must include innovativeness, creativity, innovation capacity, inventiveness, opportunity recognition; various approaches proposed Entrepreneurship is a social construction; focus on narrative, sense-making; interpretive communities; pedagogy must include discourse, storytelling, social roles: identity construction; metaphors and meaning Experience is primordial; even very little prior experience pays huge dividends; portfolio entrepreneurs are most successful. But should we then shape portfolio entrepreneurs? Strategic and technological challenges; how to link strategy, technology with entrepreneurship education? Security-risk dilemma, risk as a component in the entrepreneurial process; faculty’s walk versus talk (encourage students to take risks that teachers do not take)

Fiet (2001a, 2001b); Fendt and Sachs (2007); Starkey and Madan (2001); Weick (2001); Kuratko (2005) Birch (2004); Drucker (1984, 1985); Argyris et al. (1985); Daly (2001); Pittaway and Cope (2007); Lave and Wenger (1990) Alvarez and Busenitz (2001); Chen (2006); Binks et al. (2006); Fillis (2002); Lee et al. (2004); Rasmussen and Sorheim (2005) Dodd (2002); Downing (2005); Fletcher (2007); Fletcher and Watson (2007); Hjorth (2007); Jones and Spicer (2005); Warren (2004) Aronsson (2004); Eesley and Roberts (2006); Westhead et al. (2005) Lei and Slocum (2005); Hitt et al. (2001); Solomon et al. (2002); Binks et al. (2006); Kuratko (2005) Fletcher and Watson (2007); Kuratko and Hodgetts (2004); Kuratko (2005)


91

(continued)

Theme

Scholars

Anderson and Jack (2008) Teaching entrepreneurship needs a combination of creative talents of the artist, skills and ability of the artisan, applied knowledge of the technician and knowhow of the professional Accompanying measures: coaching, networking, incubation, deal flow support Success breeds success in entrepreneurship (spawning); pedagogy must include success elements How to prepare students for the downward deal flow: how much coaching, what measures should the school provide; bootstrapping, venture and angel financing, other financing techniques; stakeholder issues Government involvement (in entrepreneurship; in entrepreneurship education): if, when, and how Technology transfer; academic incubation, virtual incubation, education and training in incubators Communities of practice have value in developing processual understanding of entrepreneurial transition Systematization of education; curriculum development, instructional design, use of tools (for example, multimedia), type of content and transfer modes

Gompers et al. (2005) Dimov and Shepherd (2005); Hall and Vredenburg (2005); Shepherd and Zacharakis (2001, 2002) Spencer et al. (2005); Patzelt and Shepherd (2009) Carayannis et al. (2006); Carayannis and von Zedtwitz (2005); Hansen et al. (2000); O’Neal (2005) Fletcher and Watson (2007); Gausdal (2008); Johnstone and Lionais (2004); Warren (2004) Kuratko (2005); Ireland and Webb (2007)

population survey 1997). A recent global ranking of higher education institutions1 registers alumni among chief executive officers of global 500 companies. Unsurprisingly, the top ten positions are occupied by such prestigious US institutions as Harvard, Stanford, Penn and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). What about the rest? No alumnus from an English, German or French university is present within this top group2 but five French grandes écoles alumni can be found.3 An explanation for these results might be found in the French grande écoles model and its four main characteristics: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Extreme selection through a national competition based on a two-year preparatory program managed by the Ministry of Education. The preparatory program focuses on elite thinking, excellence in abstraction and conceptualization (mathematics as selection factor) and individualization (no teamwork). Meritocracy: only the top 10 per cent of (anonymous) examinees are admitted to the grandes écoles. This ‘Darwinist’ process is self-legitimizing and the selection criteria appear absolutely objective (mathematics cannot be subjective). Strong alumni networks that facilitate career ascension. A seasoned French executive will, for example, still introduce himself as a ‘polytechnicien 77’ (if a graduate from the class of ’77 of an école polytechnique) in any French business context. The grandes écoles (master’s degree) status, higher than anywhere else in the world, particularly in engineering, grants a considerable head start on the labor market.

92


Thus, the most prestigious schools harvest the best students, which are, upon graduation, in turn harvested by the best corporations for careers culminating in the best managerial positions: the system leads graduates swiftly to attractive managerial positions in the public and private sectors, which represents a priori a major problem for entrepreneurship development. Some argue that this system needs to be transformed into one favoring a vision focused on the contribution of the system to innovation (Veltz, 2007, p. 17). Until some years ago, the availability of entrepreneurship programs has been the exception in these schools (Fayolle 1998). However, internationalization has not kept away from French schools, especially business schools, and is indeed beginning to permeate it, in three ways: 1.

2.

3.

International student mix: ESCP-EAP, the school whose program we are discussing here, has about 50 per cent international students (principally European and North African). These students bring a distinctly different culture into the classroom. Moreover, all students are encouraged to spend at least a year in another country, either at a foreign university or as a trainee. ESCP-EAP also offers an alternative European master’s program in three countries, one year per country, with all classes in the local language. This program, that permits a deep immersion into three different European cultures, is increasingly chosen by students. Focus on research: increased pressure to focus more on research, as schools find themselves in a global competition and number and quality of publications considerably influence school rankings. Grandes écoles were long renowned for their severe selection, and not for their research. Students were, by and large, unfamiliar with research and very few chose a research career. For the past 15 years business and engineering schools have increasingly developed PhD programs and generated more financing for their laboratories. This evolution is relevant for entrepreneurship as many start-ups are built on innovations grounded in research. Changing business environment: the former career guaranty of grande école graduates is seriously reduced by globalization. Certainty and linearity are no longer career evolution characteristics. As risks begin to be inherent to any career, the trade-off between a comfortable position within a large company and working as an entrepreneur with a high probability of failure is shifting.

While path dependency remains powerful in the grandes écoles system, these developments seem to gradually erode it. For now, French society still, by and large, distrusts entrepreneurs and celebrates administrators, and our business schools still function largely anachronistically to entrepreneurship, since such behavior still leads to comfortable and prestigious careers. However, another indication that things are changing is that in the example presented here, it was these very comfortably and prestigiously installed alumni that suggested to their Alma Mater, ESCP-EAP in Paris, that it emphasize entrepreneurship education. We shall share here the outcome of this alumni initiative to design and launch an entrepreneurship program. Small business at a grande école ESCP-EAP is a leading French business school that has reasons to claim to have been the first business school in the world, as it has been founded by the economist Jean-Baptiste


93

Say in 1819. More recently, what distinguishes the school is its European dimension: it is structured along five campuses, the main campus in Paris and somewhat smaller infrastructures in London, Berlin, Madrid and Turin. This gives it a more international exposure than comparable French business schools. ESCP-EAP had featured an entrepreneurship program in the early 1980s, but student interest was modest then and the program was abandoned some years later. Around the Internet hype years another initiative was launched but just as it started, the ‘bubble’ burst and the project was again aborted. In 2006, upon an initiative by some leading alumni, a chair of entrepreneurship was founded and, resulting from this, a wide number of research and education projects were launched. This created the opportunity to design an entrepreneurship education project on a ‘clean slate’. The program’s core faculty (both authors of this study) consists of a seasoned professor and business angel with a history as an entrepreneur, and a young colleague with a management and new information and communication technologies background. We began by making an inventory of available resources and data. For this, we gathered current universal data on entrepreneurship education from the existing literature (Table 7.1) and we studied in some detail existing programs and best practices, both worldwide and in France. We then conceptualized this data in a thematic framework of entrepreneurship education issues (Figure 7.1). Regarding France, we gathered information on any specific preoccupations – and assets – that might be relevant to the design of an entrepreneurship education program. We visited the body of academic research as well as many non-academic resources on the particular institutional environment. We also exchanged at length with faculty from existing and/or past programs, with alumni entrepreneurs and with many other actors in the French entrepreneurship arena (investors, corporate leaders, managers of incubators, and so on). We conceptualized this rich input and in several workshops reflected upon pedagogical forms and content that could build on the identified assets and address, or neutralize the stated preoccupations to the best of our capacities. For clarity’s sake these assets and preoccupations as identified, and the corresponding measures, as designed, are directly summarized in Table 7.2. These pedagogic elements, as summarized in Table 7.2 constituted the thematic foundation on which a 150-hour major program in entrepreneurship was designed and launched in 2006. A major program is a specialization, usually involving 120 or 150 course hours, that students can choose in their final master’s year. A major program in entrepreneurship The entrepreneurship major was designed to introduce and familiarize students with entrepreneurship, essentially with the principal types of entrepreneurial action, such as (1) company creation and growth, (2) taking over existing business, (3) taking on a leading role in the family business, (4) taking on business development projects, acquisitions and/or other intrapreneurial assignments within large corporations, (5) consulting small business leaders, (6) managing entrepreneurial programs and/or infrastructures for administrations, (7) and working in venture capital contexts. In Kirby’s distinction on educating about entrepreneurship versus educating for entrepreneurship (2004), the program was aimed to address both objectives to a certain extent. The priority, however, was set on educating about entrepreneurship. In all humility, to prepare 23-year-old students in a three-month program for entrepreneurship seemed to us somewhat ambitious,

94

Figure 7.1

International Partnerships

Faculty Interest, Competences

Interschool Partnerships

Alumni involvement

Research Activities

Diversity Issues

Student Capacities

Stud. Orientations

– Attitude, awareness – Competences, skills – Network

Topics:

Pedagogy, Methods

Curriulum and Extra-curricular Activities

Program

ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM

Framework of entrepreneurship education themes

(Graduate Salary Levels as Ranking Criteria)

Ranking issues

Role within Institution

Faculty Resources, Infrastructures

Entrepr. Interest & Positioning

Business Schools & grande école Context

Graduate Recruiting

Student–VC, Angel Interact.

Student–SME Interaction

School–Corporate Interaction

Student–Corporate Interaction

Consultant and Audit Firms

Venture Capital Firms, Business Angels

Small and Medium Businesses

Corporate Businesses

Business Context

Societal and Political Context Climate for Entrepreneurship, for Entrepreneurship education Sociocultural Climate: Understanding, Valorization of Entrepreneurship (vs. Corporate Business) Role of Government, Para-Governmental and Private Structures and Policies to Promote Entrepreneurship and Education


95

Universal and French system-inherent preoccupations and proposed remedial actions

Major preoccupation(s)

Proposed course answer(s)

General Universal, school system-inherent issues: role or entrepreneurship unclear, b-school rankings based on graduates’ salaries and salary progression Societal issues: low understanding/ low esteem for entrepreneurship, confusion between entrepreneurship and corporate capitalism; risk-averse, interventionist mentality Myths, lack of knowledge about entrepreneurship, romantic representations of start-up creation and entrepreneurship

Explanation, awareness-building within b-school and beyond, about changes in the business environment and thereby the need for adaptation of our b-school offering; give entrepreneurship a leadership role at our schools (Kuratko, 2005) Awareness-building measures; students, in teams of five, organize a public event on an chosen entrepreneurship theme; learn how to build a community around a theme, attract and secure sponsors, media coverage, and so on; dock onto existing awareness-building structures such as Global Entrepreneurship Week (Journées de L’Entrepreneur) Weekly testimonials by entrepreneurs; students work as consultant teams with young entrepreneurs (with their predecessors from the master major, who have meanwhile created); regular guided introspection (self-direction, critical reflection, narration, sense-making (Buchholz and Rosenthal, 2005)

Pedagogy Problems of pedagogic goalsetting; should we educate about entrepreneurship, or for entrepreneurship? And what/ how do we evaluate what we do? Theory–practice gap, academic requirements versus business needs; theory, methods, models versus experiential approaches Micro-macro level problems; prepare for small business versus corporate careers; students learn how to manage finance, marketing, HR, and so on, but not how to apply these hands on Young age of the students (compared to population in most US programs) French system-inherent cultural homogeneity; dominance of abstract thinking, positivist paradigm

Educate largely about entrepreneurship during the program, but build important accompanying measures and infrastructures for the entire deal flow, for students and young graduates who do create during studies Theory and practice finely interwoven (Fendt and Sachs, 2007); but a strong accent on practice and operations since the master program is otherwise dominantly strategic and theoretical; hybrid faculty: specialists and generalists, practitioners and academics (Arlotto and Bourcieu, 2002) Concrete application in diverse ways, their own startup creation project, the even organization, the start-up consulting project, the China consulting project; in their own start-up project teams are coached by strategy consultants from a partner firm Focus on entrepreneurship as a ‘way of thinking and acting’, include such forms as intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, corporate venturing, small business consulting, and so on Reduce level of pedagogic framing and structure, throw students in specific, operational situations; demand handson application of accumulated models; confront with complex, heuristic tasks

96


Table 7.2

(continued)

Major preoccupation(s)

Proposed course answer(s)

Diversity/homogeneity Disciplinary homogeneity

Individualism Elite-thinking, lack of social diversity knowledge

Three different profiles work together in this major: business, engineering and design students; student selection according to likely contribution to heterogeneity and innovation (Veltz, 2007) Strong focus on teamwork. All work is teamwork except personal diary and final examination Student selection based on diversity (social, cultural, national, gender, experiences (Arlotto et al., 2007); tenday trip to Shanghai, work as a consulting team in a local entrepreneurial environment

Sustainability and transfer Time limitation of the major program: a major is three months’ tuition in the final year

Transfer measures, communitybuilding

‘Prolong’ the period of intervention by a set of measures, such as starting earlier: relating major to second year electives; making students work during the summer prior the major onset; creating mentoring relationships with alumni that outlast the student years, regular events to which young graduates are invited, and so on. Deal flow facilitation (legal, tax, financing – grants, debt and equity), door-opening, and so on (Dimov, 2007; Dimov and Shepherd, 2005); repeated participation in project and business plan competitions (Arlotto and Jourdan, 2003)

Major grande école assets Excellent, well-oiled and highly committed alumni system

Very high reputation of the school among corporations

Diverse public and private entrepreneurship support structures for operational help, advice and financing A priori high student quality; smart, fast conceptualizers

Involve alumni throughout the program: in the classroom (testimonials); in an individual one-to-one godfather/ mother system for each student (long-term support and door opening); for awareness-building vis-à-vis the school; for recruiting; for joint research projects Secure strategic partnerships for financing and other resources, such as knowledge, coaching, access to infrastructures, to decision-makers, to key networking events; facilitate recruiting for intrapreneurship assignments; joint research projects; joint brand-building Understand and structure the offer; educate students to interpret, evaluate and intelligently use such resources

Permits ambitious program, in relation to content quality, quantity and rhythm


97

not to say irresponsible. This, however, required clear communication of the objectives and limitations of the program to all stakeholders as we would come to understand. Student selection is not made according to grades or other objective criteria, but by and large subjectively: two faculty, one alumnus and business angel, and a recent graduate independently study the application files and feed back a justified ranking to faculty. From this process emerge a dozen unanimous choices and thereafter many divergences. Based on this input, faculty discusses each application in some detail, paying attention to whether curricula already showed evidence of entrepreneurial action, whether candidates could plausibly explain their motivation to apply, and so on. A very important selection factor however, is diversity. Social, national and gender diversity are priorities, as well as any unusual profiles. Specifically, the program consists of an introductory lecture in June, five parallel thematic modules (each credited as a 30-hour course, usually ten classes of 3 hours each, over three months from mid-September to mid-December) and a substantial set of accompanying measures. Each module has a distinct pedagogic logic and program, and is linked to a substantial practical project that permits the application of this logic and of the respective learnings. Introductory lecture Immediately after students are selected in June, they are invited to attend an introductory lecture. This lecture takes place on Second Life,4 since students can be registered at any one of the European campuses or doing an internship anywhere in the world. The purpose of this early lecture is to motivate students to start working right away. Many projects will gain from some preparation during the summer months. The lecture consists of an introduction to the philosophy of the program, an overview of the subjects and projects to come and, especially, a number of specific but optional assignments for the summer months. Students are asked to team up around a number of entrepreneurship topics suggested by faculty. They are also encouraged to get to know each other as much as they can, using all manners of physical and virtual networking means to do so. Module 1 A generalist, introductory module that addresses the nature of entrepreneurship: definitions, representations, culture and mentality aspects; types of entrepreneurial action (company creation, takeovers and successions, family business, intrapreneurship, entrepreneurship consulting, venture capital activities, and so on). The practical project of this module is the planning and impementation of an event on entrepreneurship. Students choose an appropriate event theme, plan the event, secure financing for the event, generate and/or mobilize a community around the theme, organize media coverage and, last but not least, hold the event and report back on it. Module 2 A specific module that specifically addresses all subjects related to start up creation: idea finding, opportunity recognition, business modeling, transforming a technology into economic value, product, service and marketing issues, segmentation; financial instruments; human resource issues; legal and tax decisions; stakeholder management; seeking financing (grants, debt and equity), and so on.

98


The practical project is a start up creation simulation that culminates in a business plan and a presentation of the project before a jury composed of faculty, alumni entrepreneurs and business angels. Each team is composed of five business students, two engineers and one designer. Module 3 A technology-based module that introduces information and communication (IC) technology-specific issues, Web 2.0 and so on. This module takes up all the functional aspects again (business modeling, opportunity recognition, customer and market issues, communication, community-building, financing, knowledge sharing, and so on), but from a IC technology perspective. The practical project that accompanies this module is the creation of a website, in small teams. This website can be created in relation to the event organization of module 1 or for the start-up project in module 2. Module 4 Innovation and communication. This module introduces students to the principles of dematerialization, to the need for perpetual mutation, adaptation and to co-evolution phenomena; to the phenomenon of infobesity, and so on. They discover new modes, forms and applications of fast and striking comprehension, decision-making and communication; tools and methods of idea-sharing, sense-making, vision development and sharing, acceleration and adaptation. The practical project of this module is a consulting assignment – in teams of five – within start-ups that have been created very recently by fellow students and are incubated in the school’s incubator. Module 5 China assignment: this module concerns an intrapreneurial approach to entrepreneurial action. The assignment is constructed on a real-life case concerning a French company implanted in an emerging economy – in this case China. The chief executive officer (CEO) shares a specific everyday issue with students (for example, a growth problem, the need to expand into other Chinese regions, the introduction of a new product or service, or a similar issue). Students, in large teams, receive some vague information on the company and the context about one week prior to departure and must gather as much information that they can. Upon arrival in Shanghai they receive a briefing by the client and work on some solutions on location. On the last day these propositions are presented before the client’s management team and faculty. During the week students receive lectures addressing specific issues (cultural, legal, political, economic factors and so on). Accompanying measures ●

A business plan coaching service by seasoned alumni who are confirmed entrepreneurs and/or business angels. Students can consult this coaching service at any time, either individually or in teams, to get a clear and informed feedback on their business model and planning progress.

Small business education in a grande nation ●

●

●

●

● ●

99

A very simple incubation infrastructure for students and/or student teams that have a real-life project that they intend to pursue and implement during or right after their studies (admission by a jury composed of faculty, students and alumni). A series of testimonials by different kinds of entrepreneurs (for example, high technology, green technology, social, food; small business, medium-size enterprise: intrapreneur; successful, unsuccessful, and so on). Weekly ‘brown bag meetings’ where students and faculty gather over lunch, bringing their own lunch along and freely and informally discuss various topics related to the major program. Two high-level networking events that unite the emerging entrepreneurship community or ecosystem (alumni entrepreneurship clubs, individual alumni, corporate partners, students from various programs (not only grande école master, but also specialized master programs, MBAs and so on), faculty, public support services, and so on). A collaborative website, with a number of information-sharing systems, blogs, and so on. A national business plan competition organized by the school and also access to other available business plan competitions.

Pedagogy As they arrive in their final year, students have accumulated an impressive amount of knowledge in the key management disciplines, tools and methods and achieved remarkable cruising speed in performing all manners of pedagogic exercises (case studies, reports, lectures, role plays, event organizations, end of term examinations, and so on) asked of them, with efficiency and effectiveness. In the logic of Stevenson’s definition of entrepreneurship as ‘the pursuit of opportunity beyond the resources you currently control’ (Stevenson, 1983, 2000) we deliberately apply a different pedagogy. We frequently give students very approximate assignments, with little methodological help and resources. They are literally thrown into challenging situations with very few instructions and totally insufficient resources. An assignment could, for example, be to organize a public event, in teams of five students, on the concept of ‘work’ in the twenty-first century, or on RFID, or on entrepreneurship in the food or fashion business, or on social entrepreneurship, and so on by identifying and mobilizing major actors in the field, building a community around the theme, organizing the necessary resources, ensuring media coverage, and implementing the event in a way as to add value to our institutions. Students must then act mainly independently, or rather define and organize the necessary degree of guidance and support from academic faculty and professionals. The different modules apply different degrees of reduced pedagogical structure, with module 1 being the most extremely unstructured and modules 3 and 2 displaying more classical approaches but still with considerable hands on components. Validation Course validation is based 50 per cent on participation and project work and 50 per cent on classical written examinations. This latter progress evaluation seems somewhat anachronistic with the nature of the program proposed, but is compulsory for school administration reasons.

100


Findings Given the novel character of the program, all our antennae are obviously stretched in all possible directions to gather implicit and tacit feedbacks. This is not so simple because the program generates powerful energies from all stakeholders, and is constantly surrounded by some aura of collective enthusiasm that makes it difficult, paradoxically, to obtain differentiated feedback. We base our analysis on the school’s classical evaluation systems (immediate and deferred standard student satisfaction questionnaires) and a set of detailed, course-specific anonymous feedbacks and suggestions for improvement that we asked students (from all participating schools) to gather, which they did, in the shape of a 30-page document with a total of 150 detailed comments. We also performed and analysed four in-depth narrative interviews, and held four stakeholder specific feedback meetings (with school management, with the involved alumni, with the major’s faculty and with the corporate sponsor). We also gathered more tangible parameters such as results at business plan competitions, feedback from investors and business angels involved in our various jurys, projects admitted to incubators, projects financed, and number of companies created. General aspects The first not unimportant finding is that the program was very well received right from the start. In its first year it featured 40 applicants, of which 25 were chosen, based on their curriculum vitae and a motivation letter. This is significant for a number of reasons. First, the entrepreneurship major program was created and communicated just a few weeks before students needed to make their choice – a choice that for many is usually made long before their final year. Secondly, the roughly 400 annual final year students have 14 different major programs to choose from plus they can choose not to take a major at all. Thirdly, the major was launched in 2006, a period of economic prosperity during which the leading corporations – especially banks and consulting companies – were literally lining up to recruit the grande école graduates. In the second year the program generated over 60 applicants, of whom 35 were chosen. This again is significant feedback, since one of the key factors influencing choice is student word of mouth. In both years, three companies were created at or around graduation, and four more were admitted to incubators. Five student projects attracted business angels’ interest, but were not pursued. Formal student evaluations were overall positive, with averages somewhere around ‘satisfied’ (3.5–4/5), that is, more or less in line with other well-running majors but not above them. The students did fairly well in running business plan competitions, coming out top or in the final five in most of them. The school was elected best school for entrepreneurship by the only French student venture fund, based on the number of student projects having found funding in a given year (2007). Students In just two years the program has developed a considerable reputation. There is a ‘hype’ around the program that has been selective from the onset, at ESCP-EAP and at the accompanying engineering and design schools. Students that are admitted are visibly proud and communicate this. The major is widely known, it is considered ‘modern’,5 ‘sexy’ and ‘innovative’ and, for some, ‘the place to be for anybody wanting to take his destiny in his own hands’ and ‘be an actor’ in today’s socio-economic system. Recent


101

graduates from the program regularly come to visit students and faculty, and are generously available – both when called upon by faculty and/or students and on their own initiative – for any actions that may be needed and/or useful to help the program to improve and the emerging community of entrepreneurs to develop and prosper. Formal feedbacks are ‘good’ on average, the informal feedbacks are very detailed and explicit and reflect the enthusiasm of all the actors, previous, present and future, to contribute to the program, to bring the subject of entrepreneurship onto the school’s agenda, and to ensure that the school is competitive in the field. Regarding the program itself, the study of the detailed written feedbacks and especially the in-depth interviews reveal two principal insights: 1.

2.

Heterogeneous, or even conflicting objectives: while the students share a common passion for entrepreneurship, their objectives are quite different. Some have a precise project, perhaps even a start-up. They cannot wait to finish school so as to dedicate themselves exclusively to their project. They expect to be given as precisely as possible the knowledge, tools, methods, contacts and specific customized support they need to advance in their venture. There are few of these type of student, two or three, but they are looked up to by fellow students. Another category is the sons and daughters of business owners who are hoping to join, or not, the family business one day. Having grown up with entrepreneurs, they have a solid knowledge base on the every day issues of a small business (for example, employees’ problems, liquidity issues, customer satisfaction, tax issues) and a natural familiarity with some essential entrepreneurial issues, a more realistic representation of the entrepreneur, than the rest of the group. The rest, the majority of the class, has an affinity with the subject matter but no more. Entrepreneurship is one possible future among others, they envisage it now, or later, in the first degree or within a large organization, or perhaps not at all. It is not obvious to find a common pedagogy for such a wide field of needs and interests. This pedagogy cannot be situated at the lowest common denominator, but rather a tension has to be maintained to keep all audiences at an acceptable commitment level at all times. Degree of pedagogic structure: students reacted very differently, but generally positively, to the deliberate lack of structured pedagogy in some courses. To most, after an adjustment period, this seemed to have a liberating effect, a sort of revelation as to how they can put to use the skills accumulated over the years. Others are at times quite lost and need to be coached.

Faculty As for many entrepreneurship initiatives (Kuratko 2005, p. 590), this program originally hinged on two people’s determination and passion. However, as it progressed, other faculty spontaneously expressed their interest an offered their contributions. If we do not have today a more comprehensive offering of entrepreneurship electives, it has more to do with a general lack of time for the collective development of such modules than with lack of interest or competence. Both the interaction with the faculty from the engineering school and from the design school were satisfactory. The role of design in the entrepreneurial process was especially insightful and displayed rich potential. This transcends the possibility of this chapter. But there is a clear intention to deepen the study of the relationship between design and entrepreneurial value creation and to ultimately report on this.

102


Business angels, alumni entrepreneurs and corporate sponsors The participation of external actors from the entrepreneurship community is voluntary and generous. We have no difficulty in finding bona fide entrepreneurs and business angels to participate in the program, be it for testimonials, project coaching and/or participation in final jurys and pitching events. Also, corporate sponsors are particularly interested in investing both money and considerable human resources in the program. This could not necessarily be anticipated since the program essentially attracts students who do not necessarily seek careers in large corporations. But our inquiries indicate that this is exactly the reason why they are attractive to corporations: with increasing needs for innovation, flexibility and complexity management, corporations seek entrepreneurial profiles. Also, beyond the profiling benefit, the intense collaboration with students has a learning effect within the corporations themselves. Regarding business angels, we had some problems of expectation management. As angels are invited to our end-of-program, ‘pitch before investors’ event, many came with the firm intention identifying – and investing in – viable entrepreneurial ventures, and some projects do indeed have attractive and viable business models. However, since the student teams come from different schools, with different timetables, they are often not in a position to pursue and actually create their ventures. Often, the teams dissolve at the end of the program and the ventures do not materialize. We have learned to be clearer in our communication to business angels and explain to them the essentially scholarly character of the event. Surprisingly, with very few exceptions, this has not diminished their enthusiasm and availability. We encourage them to give a detailed written appreciation of the projects, which they do with diligence and insight. This feedback is rich and highly appreciated by the students. We intend to study these diverse transactional and transformational relationships with stakeholders in more detail and report on them in a further study. School management The relationship between the entrepreneurship programs and the business and engineering schools that they are affiliated to is still particular. While there is much moral encouragement and some pride, there is virtually no material support. We locate reasons in the relative newness of the subject of entrepreneurship and its atypicity with respect to the schools’ primary missions. A special problem seems to lie in the transversality of the subject matter: it has no home base, no department of its own, faculty come from many different departments, such as finance, strategy, marketing, operations, law, and so on, while resources are normally allocated to departments. So there are essentially no budgets for this costly and largely experimental pedagogy. The team teaching, the coordination between school programs, the mobilization of external coaches, specialists, entrepreneurs, for testimonials and lectures; the project work monitoring, the community events, the pitching evenings, and so on are therefore mostly booked on the account of a few passionate teachers who give untold amounts of time that they would otherwise spend doing research or consulting. Entrepreneurship programs are often orphans, and administrative support is ‘sporadic at best’ (Kuratko, 2005, p. 590) and this may not change much as long as school rankings are based primarily on the salary levels of our graduates in their first few year. Still, we have a case and, with Kuratko (2005, p. 590) we say: ‘we can move the entrepreneurship field into a leadership role at our institutions. It is hard for any senior officer to ignore a program that stands in a leadership and influen-


103

tial position among students, alumni, business leaders, donors, and other faculty. This is the base of real leadership power, and entrepreneurship deserves nothing less in the 21st century!’ Conclusions While the pedagogic innovations presented here appear to respond clearly to a growing need, they are too recent for us to draw any conclusions. Much of what is discussed here remains speculative. Several more program runs are needed, ideally in varying economic contexts, before we can expect more robust findings. So what can we confirm at this stage? For one, we expected the French grandes écoles system to complicate matters. Indeed, the major system-inherent limiting factors that were identified were confirmed. These are, essentially, (1) little tropism toward entrepreneurship among students, due to excellent corporate career opportunities and relative job security, (2) a master’s program that prepares for corporate careers (macro-level pedagogy), and a very short pedagogic time window in the final year to apply a small business, hands on pedagogy, (3) a societal value system that is essentially askant to entrepreneurship, (4) a school system that is also a priori hostile to entrepreneurship, (5) a general the lack of knowledge and/or misapprehension of entrepreneurship, either vilifying or romancing it, (6) myriad government and para-governmental aides and subsidies to support all types of initiatives, even those that are unfit to survive, and (7) a student body that emerges from a primarily intellectual, highly individualist and Cartesian education that has shaped them to mostly adopt a strongly positivist paradigm. Is the program a success? The issue of how to measure success or failure of entrepreneurship education programs is work in progress at best (Fayolle, 2000b), and we shall not expand on this here. What we understood clearly, however, is that it begins with the objective that one sets – is the program primarily about entrepreneurship, or for (future) entrepreneurs – and with the clear communication of this objective to all stakeholders. We noticed that students without a concrete project are likely to be stressed at the conception of having to, here and now, come up with a viable idea or otherwise fail the program, just as we experienced the frustration for students who enter the program with a specific project and cannot go ahead and focus all their strength on its maturation and launch. We even noticed that some graduates almost ‘apologized’ for having been hired for (sometimes highly attractive) positions, rather that create their own company! Thus, this need to be perfectly clear in objectives applied to all stakeholders: faculty will design different lectures in either case; the type of corporate sponsors is likely to be different and the sponsor will understand whether he is in a recruiting logic or in a future customer logic; and business angels know that they come to judge simulations of businesses, and that they cannot count on the students actually going ahead with the project even if it appears perfectly viable. Last but not least, for school management, the number of companies created at graduation will become one measuring criteria of many. In the present contextual framework our mission is realistically to primarily build awareness, rather than prepare students for company creation (c.f. also Leger-Jarniou, 2009, on this question) and indeed we clearly focus on the former. The objective is to introduce students – many of whom live in a societal context that does not value entrepreneurship – to the idea that entrepreneurship can be a valid alternative to classical career options. While the program also includes detailed simulation of a ‘company creation’, it principally addresses entrepreneurial action in such diverse occurrences as intrapreneurship,

104


corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial attitude and spirit, taking over existing businesses, preparing for succession in a family business, evaluating and valuating businesses from a venture capital point of view, and so on. Our study of the extant literature (Table 7.1) and our own experience based on a pedagogy designed to respond to the context at hand (Figure 7.1 and Table 7.2) confirm to us that entrepreneurship education at French grandes écoles can have a positive impact on fostering the entrepreneurship spirit (educating about entrepreneurship) and, to a lesser extent, can prepare students for company creation (educating for entrepreneurship) (Kirby, 2004, p. 514). We have talented and engaged students and committed alumni, and we are learning to understand and deal with French grande école particularities. We have some means to identify, motivate, evaluate and develop entrepreneurial potential; to kindle the entrepreneurial spirit, and to help develop a basic set of necessary skills. We can also introduce aspiring entrepreneurs to a solid network of stakeholders, and help accompany their creations in their early growth phases. Regarding the stated systemic inhibiting factors, we can say for now that: ● ● ●

they proved to be far less inhibiting than anticipated, they proved to be absorbable to a large extent with the proposed pedagogic approaches, of which the diversity measures seem to be the most effective, and many factors will probably dilute and solve themselves over time, as we enter into economically troubled times the difference in risk and opportunity between a corporate and an entrepreneurial career are likely to narrow. As schools become more international, French students will be confronted much earlier with other profiles and this might dilute some of the problems encountered.

Attitudes are already changing: more and more students envision an entrepreneurial career. Many grandes écoles make considerable efforts to promote entrepreneurship in general, and company creation in particular: research program financing, creation of incubators, a whole range of dedicated programs, networking events, collaborations with the private industry, and so on, is progressing. This is work in progress: we shall continue to give these phenomena all our attention in the future. We plan to bring entrepreneurship onto the agenda much earlier, in the first year with a discovery day and in the second year with a number of specialized electives. Also, we plan to bring different students together much earlier in the process and in a more intense way so as to permit an earlier and deeper understanding of the differences in the paradigms, ontologies and cognitive characteristics inherent in these combined student population. The same reasoning can be applied to the institutions’ faculties and to other stakeholders associated with the programs (banks, business angels, entrepreneurs, and so on), meaning that early, repeated, more systematic, more visible contacts among these actors might also be beneficial. Notes 1. http://www.ensmp.fr/Actualites/PR/EMP-ranking.pdf. 2. The grandes écoles stand completely outside the university system. The schools enjoy considerable academic independence and the programmes are heterogeneous. 3. École polytechnique, HEC, Sciences Po, École Nationale d’Administration and École des Mines.


105

4. Second Life is a free 3D virtual world accessible through the Internet where users can socialize, connect and create using voice and text chat. 5. All quotes in this section are from student feedback interviews, unless stated otherwise.

References Alvarez, S.A. and L.W. Busenitz (2001), ‘The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory’, Journal of Management, 27 (6), 755–76. Anderson, A.R. and S.L. Jack (2008), ‘Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional artisan?’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (2), 259–73. Anderson, A.R. and R. Smith (2007), ‘The moral space in entrepreneurship: an exploration of ethical imperatives and the moral legitimacy of being enterprising’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19 (6), 479–97. APCE (Agence Pour la Création ď Entreprises) (2008), L’observatoire des pratiques pédagogiques en entrepreneuriat (Observatory of Pedagogic Practices in Entrepreneurship), Conseil National de la Création ď Entreprise (CNCE) (ed.), Paris: Ministère de la Recherche. Argyris, C., R. Putnam and D. McLain Smith (1985), Action Science, Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Arlotto, J. and S. Bourcieu (2002), ‘Sensibilisation à l’Entrepreneuriat par projet: pour une approche transversale de l’enseignement aux élèves ingénieurs et managers: Cas du Challenge Projets d’Entreprendre’ (‘Sensitization to the entrepreneurship on project: for a transversal approach of the teaching aimed to engineer and economic students: the Challenge Projets d’Entreprendre case study’), paper presented at the CIFPME, Montréal. Arlotto, J. and P. Jourdan (2003), ‘Les concours à la création d’entreprise: une nouvelle perspective pédagogique pour l’entrepreneuriat? Cas du Challenge Projets d’Entreprendre’ (‘The support for the enterprise creation: is it a new pedagogic prospective for the entrepreneurship? The Challenge Projets d’Entreprendre case study’), paper presented at the AIREPME, Agadir. Arlotto, J., J.-P. Boissin and S. Maurin (2007), ‘L’intention entrepreneuriale des étudiants Grandes Ecoles/ Universités: un faux débat?’, (‘The entrepreneurial project of the students from business school/universities: is it a false debate?’), paper presented at the Congrès International de l’Entrepreneuriat, Paris. Aronsson, M. (2004), ‘Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education?’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3 (3), 289–92. Baldassari, S. (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship in higher education – especially in non-business studies’, in EC Enterprise and Industry Director General (ed.), Promotion of SME Competitiveness: Entrepreneurship, Brussels: European Commission, pp. 1–69. Béchard, J.P. (1994), ‘Les Grandes Questions de Recherche en Entrepreneuriat et Education’, (‘The great debates about the research in the entrepreneurship and education’) Cahier de Recherche HEC Montréal, 94, 2–42. Béchard, J.P. and D. Grégoire (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of higher education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4 (1), 22–43. Beranger, J., R. Chabbal and F. Dambrine (1998), ‘Sur la formation entrepreneuriale des ingénieurs’ (‘About the entrepreneurial training of the engineers’), 127, Paris: Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de l’industrie, Conseil général des Mines, Conseil général des Technologies de l’Information. Binks, M., K. Starkey and C. Mahon (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship and the business school’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18 (1), 1–18. Birch, D. (2004), ‘Education matters – but does entrepreneurship education?’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3 (3), 289–92. Birley, S. (1986), ‘The role of new firms: births, deaths and job generation’, Strategic Management Journal, 7 (4), 361–76. Buchholz, R.A. and S.B. Rosenthal (2005), ‘The spirit of entrepreneurship and the qualities of moral decision making: toward a unifying framework – part 1’, Journal of Business Ethics, 60 (3), 307–15. Carayannis, E.G. and M. von Zedtwitz (2005), ‘Architecting gloCal (global–local), real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies: lessons learned and best practices from current development and business incubation practices’, Technovation, 25 (2), 95–110. Carayannis, E.G., D. Evans and M. Hanson (2003), ‘A cross-cultural learning strategy for entrepreneurship education: outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US’, Technovation, 23 (9), 757–72. Carayannis, E.G., D. Popescu, C. Sipp and S. McDonald (2006), ‘Technological learning for entrepreneurial development in the knowledge economy: case studies and lessons learned’, Technovation, 26 (4), 419–43. Chadeau, E. (1993), ‘The large family firm in twentieth-century France’, Business History, 35 (4), 184–205.

106


Chaganti, R. and P.G. Greene (2002), ‘Who are ethnic entrepreneurs? A study of entrepreneurs’ ethnic involvement and business characteristics’, Journal of Small Business Management, 40 (2), 126–43. Chen, J. (2006), ‘Weaving the threads of entrepreneurship creativity, innovation and into a technicolor dreamcoat’, Journal of Administrative Management, (50), 22–3. Chrisman, J.J., J.H. Chua and P. Sharma (2003), ‘Current trends and future directions in family business management: toward a theory of the family firm’, Coleman White Paper Series, 4, 1–63. Covin, J.D. and M.P. Miles (1999), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 47–63. Cox, L.W., S.L. Mueller and S. Moss (2002), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial self-Efficacy’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (2), 229–47. Daly, S.P. (2001), ‘Student-operated internet businesses: true experiential learning in entrepreneurship and retail management’, Journal of Marketing Education, 23 (3), 204–16. Denis, J.-P. (ed.) (2007), Regard sur les PME (A Look at the Small Businesses), Vol. 14, Paris: OSEO. Dickson, P.H., G.T. Solomon and K.M. Weaver (2008), ‘Entrepreneurial selection and success: does education matter?’, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 15 (2), 239–58. Dimov, D. (2007), ‘Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31 (5), 713–31. Dimov, D.P. and D.A. Shepherd (2005), ‘Human capital theory and venture capital firms: exploring “home runs” and “strike outs”’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (1), 1–21. Dodd, S.D. (2002), ‘Metaphors and meaning – a grounded cultural model of US entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 519–35. Downing, S. (2005), ‘The social construction of entrepreneurship: narrative and dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29 (2), 185–204. Drucker, P.F. (1984), ‘Our entrepreneurial economy’, Harvard Business Review, 62 (1), 59–64. Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row. Duhamel, O. and B. Teinturier (2004), TNS Sofres, L’Etat de l’opinion (TNS Sofres, The State of the Belief), Paris: Seuil. Eesley, C. and E. Roberts (2006), ‘Cutting your teeth: Learning from rare experiences’, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4609–06. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘Building theory from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–50. Facchini, F. (2007), ‘L’entrepreneur comme un homme prudent’ (‘The entrepreneur as a cautious man’), Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 226–7, 29–39. Fayolle, A. (1998) ‘Orientation entrepreneuriale des étudiants et évaluation de l’impact des programmes d’enseignement et de l’entrepreneuriat sur les comportements entrepreneuriaux des étudiants des Grandes Ecoles de gestion française. Etude exploratoire’ (‘The entrepreneurial orientation of the students and evaluation of the teaching and entrepreneurship programs impact on the entrepreneurial attitude of French Business Schools’ students. Exploratory study’), paper presented at the Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Paris. Fayolle, A. (2000a), ‘Dynamisme entrepreneurial et croissance economique: une comparaison France – etats unis’, in T. Verstraete (ed.), Histoire d’entreprendre – les réalités de l’entrepreneuriat, Paris: Editions Management et Sociétés, pp. 33–47. Fayolle, A. (2000b), ‘Exploratory study to assess the effects of entrepreneurship programs on French student entrepreneurial behaviors’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 8 (2), 169–84. Fendt, J., and W.M. Sachs (2007), ‘Relevance in management research: getting one’s hands very dirty’, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta. Fendt, J., Paris T. and Bureau S. (2008), ‘Can entrepreneurship be taught? The case of the French grandes ecoles’, EURAM 2008. Ljubljana: European Academy of Management. Fiet, J.O. (2001a), ‘The pedagogical side of teaching entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (2) 101–17. Fiet, J.O. (2001b), ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (1), 1–24. Filion, L.J. and C. Bourion (2008), ‘Les représentations entrepreneuriales’, Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie, 13 (32), 6–262. Fillis, I. (2002), ‘An Andalusian dog or a rising star? Creativity and the marketing/entrepreneurship interface’, Journal of Marketing Management, 18 (3/4), 379–95. Fletcher, D.E. (2007), ‘“Top story”: the narrative world of entrepreneurship and the creation of interpretive communities’, Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (5), 649–72. Fletcher, D.E. and T.J. Watson (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship, management learning and negotiated narratives: ‘making it otherwise for us – otherwise for them’, Management Learning, 38 (1), 9–26. Gartner, W.B. and K.H. Vesper (1994), ‘Experiments in entrepreneurship education: success and failures’, Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 179–87.


107

Gartner, W.B., B.J., Bird and J.A. Starr (1992), ‘Acting as if: differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16 (3), 13–32. Gausdal, A.H. (2008), ‘Developing regional communities of practice by network reflection: the case of the Norwegian electronics industry’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20 (3), 209–35. Gompers, P., L. Lerner and D. Scharfstein (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial spawning: public corporations and the genesis of new ventures’, Journal of Finance, 60 (2), 577–614. Gosling, J. and H. Mintzberg (2006), ‘Management education as if both matter’, Management Learning, 37 (4), 419–29. Greene, P.G., M.M. Hart, E.J. Gatewood, C.G. Brush and N.M. Carter (2003), ‘Women entrepreneurs: moving front and center’, Coleman White Paper Series, 3, 1–47. Gudeman, D.A. (1992), ‘Denotational semantics of a goal-directed language’, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 14 (1), 107–25. Gundry, L.K. and H.P. Welsch (2001), ‘The ambitious entrepreneur: high-growth strategies of women-owned enterprises’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (5), 453–70. Hall, J. and H. Vredenburg (2005), ‘Managing stakeholder ambiguity’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 (1), 11–13. Hansen, M.T., H.W. Chesbrough, N. Nohria and D.N Sull (2000), ‘Networked incubators’, Harvard Business Review, 78 (5), 74–84. Hills, G.E. (1988), ‘Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an evolving field’, Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 109–22. Hitt, M.A., R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp and D.L. Sexton (2001), ‘Strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation’, Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6), 479–92. Hitt, M.A., R.D. Nixon, R.E. Hoskisson and R. Kochhar (1999), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and cross-functional fertilization: activation, process and disintegration of a new product design team’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 145–67. Hjorth, D. (2007), ‘Lessons from Iago: narrating the event of entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (5), 712–32. Hood, J.N. and J.E. Young (1993), ‘Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas of development: a survey of top executives in successful entrepreneurial firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 115–35. Inglehart, R. and W.E. Baker (2000), ‘A modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values’, American Sociological Review, 65, 19–51. INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques) (1997), Enquête employ, Paris: INSEE. Ireland, R.D. and J.W. Webb (2007), ‘A cross-disciplinary exploration of entrepreneurship research’, Journal of Management, 33 (6), 891–927. Ireland, R.D., M.A. Hitt and D.G. Simon (2003), ‘A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions’, Journal of Management, 29 (6), 963–89. Janney, J.J. (2002), ‘Eat or get eaten? How equity ownership and diversification shape CEO risk-taking’, Academy of Management Executive, 16 (4), 157–8. Johnstone, H. and D. Lionais (2004), ‘Depleted communities and community business entrepreneurship: revaluing space through place’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16 (3), 217–33. Jones, C. and A. Spicer (2005), ‘The sublime object of entrepreneurship’, Organization, 12 (2), 223–46. Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2), 283–300. Katz, J.A., E.F. Harschman and K.L Dean (2000), ‘Non-disclosure agreements in the classroom: a student entrepreneur’s refuge or risk?’, Journal of Management Education, 24 (2), 234–53. Kickul, J. and L.K. Gundry (2002), ‘Prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation’, Journal of Small Business Management, 40 (2), 85–97. Kirby, D.A. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?’, Education 1 Training, 46 (8/9), 510–19. Klapper, R. (2005), ‘Training entrepreneurship at a French grande ecole: the project entreprendre at the ESC Rouen’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 29 (9), 678–93. Kuratko, D.F. (1996), ‘Risk, challenge and innovation: the entrepreneurial experience at Ball State University’, Mid-American Journal of Business, 11 (2), 43–8. Kuratko, D.F. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship Education in the 21st Century: From Legitimization to Leadership’, paper presented at the Meeting of the US Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29 (5), 1042–2587. Kuratko, D.P. and M.C. Goldsby (2004), ‘Corporate entrepreneurs or rogue middle managers? A framework for ethical corporate entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Ethics, 55 (1), 13–30. Kuratko, D.F. and R.M. Hodgetts (2004), Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice, 6th edn, Mason, OH: South-Western, Thomson.

108


Kuratko, D.F., R.D. Ireland and J.S. Hornsby (2001), ‘Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: Acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy’, Academy of Management Executive, 15 (4), 60–71. Kuratko, D.F., R.D. Ireland, J.G. Covin and J.S. Hornsby (2005), ‘A model of middle-level managers’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (6), 699–716. Lasch, F. and S. Yami (2008), ‘The nature and focus of entrepreneurship research in France over the past decade: a French touch?’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 32 (2), 339–60. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1990), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, S.Y., R. Florida and Z.J. Acs (2004), ‘Creativity and entrepreneurship: a regional analysis of new firm formation’, Regional Studies, 38 (8), 879–91. Leger-Jarniou, C. (2009), ‘Apprendre à entreprendre: Les clichés sont vivaces’ (’Learning entrepreneurship: the cliches are well alive’), L’Expansion, 1, 40–44. Lei, D. and J.W. Slocum Jr (2005), ‘Strategic and organizational requirements for competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Executive, 19 (1), 31–45. Locke, R.R. (1984), The End of Practical Man: Entrepreneurship and Higher Education in Germany, France, and Great Britain, 1880–1940. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Marchesnay, M. (2007), ‘Trente ans d’entrepreneuriat et PME en France: naissance, connaissance et reconnaissance’, 75ème Journée ACFAS. Québec: Trois Rivières. Martz Jr, W.M.B., A. Biscaccianti and T.C. Neil (2005), ‘A multicultural perception of the entrepreneurial lifestyle’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13 (4), 359–81. Matlay, H. (2008), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’, Journal of Small Business Enterprise Development, 15 (2), 382–96. McDougall, P.P. and B.M. Oviatt (2003), ‘Some fundamental issues in international entrepreneurship’, Coleman White Paper Series, 2, 1–27. McGrath, R.G., I. MacMillan and S. Scheinberg (1992), ‘Elitists, risk takers, and rugged individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 7 (2), 115–35. McKelvey, B. (2004), ‘Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 19 (3), 313–42. Miles, M.P. and J.G. Covin (2002), ‘Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: some common forms and their organizational implications’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 21–40. Morris, M.H. and D.F. Kuratko (2002), Corporate Entrepreneurship, Mason, IA: South-Western College Publishers. Morris, M.H., M. Schindehutte, J. Walton and J. Allen (2002), ‘The ethical context of entrepreneurship: proposing and testing a developmental framework’, Journal of Business Ethics, 40 (4), 331–61. O’Neal, T. (2005), ‘Evolving a successful university-based incubator: lessons learned from the UCF technology incubator’, Engineering Management Journal, 17 (3), 11–25. OCDE (ed.) (2006), Programme for International Student Assessment. Oslo: OCDE. Padgett, B.L. (2005), ‘After dot-com, after Worldcom, after Enron, after capitalism’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 15 (2), 329–40. Patzelt, H. and D.A. Shepherd (2009), ‘Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: academic entrepreneurs’ assessment of policy programs’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33 (1), 319–40. Pittaway, L. and J. Cope (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence’, International Small Business Journal, 25 (5), 497–510. Rasmussen, E.A. and R. Sorheim (2005), ‘Action-Based Entrepreneurship Education’, available at: http://www. sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURLand_udi=B6V8B-4GSBGJ9-2and_user=10and_rdoc=1and_fmt =and_orig=searchand_sort=dandview=cand_acct=C000050221and_version=1and_urlVersion=0and_useri d=10andmd5=ea952681a34a6ff0ce3c195f944ce737 (accessed 13 January 2008). Ronstadt, R. (1987), ‘The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning’, American Journal of Small Business, 11 (4), 37–53. Say, J.B. (1803), Traité d’économie Politique (Essay about Political Economy), Paris: Calmann Lévy. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, trans. R. Opie, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J.A. (1953), Aufsätze zur Soziologie, eds E. Schneider and A. Spiethoff, Tübingen: Mohr. Scott, P. and D.F. Twomey (1998), ‘The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students’ career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship’, Journal of Small Business Management, 26 (4), 5–13. Shepherd, D.A. and A. Zacharakis (2001), ‘Speed to initial public offering of VC-backed companies’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25 (3), 59–69. Shepherd, D.A. and A. Zacharakis (2002), ‘Venture capitalists’ expertise: a call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (1), 1–20.


109

Solomon, G.T., S. Duffy and A. Tarabishy (2002), ‘The state of entrepreneurship education in the US’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (1), 65–86. Spencer, J.W., T.P. Murtha and S.A. Lenway (2005), ‘How governments matter to new industry creation’, Academy of Management Review, 30 (2), 321–37. Starkey, K. and P. Madan (2001), ‘Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future management research’, British Journal of Management, 12 (special issue), 503–26. Stevenson, H. (1983), ‘A perspective on entrepreneurship’, Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 9-384-131. Stevenson, H. (2000), ‘Why entrepreneurship has won!’, paper presented at the USASBE National Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Torrès, O. (2001), ‘Les divers types d’entrepreneuriat dt de PME dans le monde’, Management International, 6 (1), 1–15. Torrès, O. (2007), La recherche académique française en PME, les thèses, les revues, les réseaux (French Academic Research on SMEs, Theses, Reviews, Networks), Paris: Oseo. Torrès, O. and A. Eminet (2005), ‘Rapport 2003–2004 sur l’entrepreneuriat en France et dans le monde’, (‘Report 2003–2004 about the entrepreneurship in France and worldwide’), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, available at: http://gemconsortium.org/document.aspx?id=908. Tracey, P. and N. Phillips (1997), U.S. Current Population Survey, Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Tracey, P. and N. Phillips (2007), ‘The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: a postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6 (2), 264–71. Upton, N., E.J. Teal and J.T. Felan (2001), ‘Strategic and business planning practices of fast growth family firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, 39 (1), 60–72. Useem, J. (1996), ‘Young M.B.A. seeks attractive company’, Inc., 18 (16), 19–21. Useem, J. (2001), ‘The risk-taker returns’, FSB: Fortune Small Business, 11 (4), 70–73. Valentin, G. (1994), ‘Les entreprises petites et moyennes: croissance et atouts’, Economie et Statistiques, 274 (1), 3–9. Veltz, P. (2007), Faut-il sauver les grandes écoles? De la culture de la sélection à la culture de l’innovation (Are the Business School to be Saved? From the Culture of Selection to the Culture of Innovation), Paris: Les presses de Sciences Po. Warren, L. (2004), ‘Negotiating entrepreneurial identity’, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, April, 25–35. Weick, K.E. (2001), ‘Gapping the relevance bridge: fashions meet fundamentals in management research’, British Journal of Management, 12 (special issue), 71–6. Westhead, P., D. Ucbasaran and M. Wright (2005), ‘Experience and cognition: do novices, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs differ?’, International Small Business Journal, 23 (1), 72–98. Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Zahra, S.A. (2005), ‘A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research’, Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (1), 20–28. Zahra, S.A., D.F. Kuratko and J.E. Jennings (1999), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and wealth creation’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25 (1), 44–50. Zahra, S.A., J. Hayton, J. Marcel and H. O’Neill (2001), ‘Fostering entrepreneurship during international expansion: managing key challenges’, European Management Journal, 19 (4), 359–69. Zeithaml, C.P. and G.H. Rice (1987), ‘Entrepreneurship/small business education in American universities’, Journal of Small Business Management, 25 (1), 44–50.

8

Stakeholder participation in, and impact upon, entrepreneurship education in the UK Harry Matlay

Introduction Much has been written, in recent years, on entrepreneurship education and related issues. Its topicality as an emerging field of research can be attributed largely to the growing importance that governments, policy-makers and business commentators in both developed and developing countries attach to entrepreneurship as an economic activity. There is a shared perception, amongst a varied and influential group of stakeholders, that entrepreneurship education represents an efficient and cost-effective means of increasing the number and the quality of entrepreneurs entering the economy (Matlay, 2006a). In this context, Dickson and Solomon (2008, p. 240) argue that the unprecedented growth in entrepreneurship education is ‘based on the fundamental assumption that there is a positive relationship between education and the individual’s choice to become an entrepreneur as well as the potential positive outcomes of such activity’. Importantly, however, concerted efforts to empirically prove a positive link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial outcomes have resulted in inconclusive and sometimes contradictory results (Charney and Libecap, 2003). As Matlay (2008, p. 382) suggests ‘the growing body of empirically rigorous research in this area has so far provided only limited evidence to support the assumption that entrepreneurship education can generate better outcomes at various stages of entrepreneurial activity, from start-up through to exit strategies’. Despite persistent conceptual and contextual problems, entrepreneurship education is now a well-established component of the UK higher education (HE) landscape. Hannon (2006, p. 297) argues that ‘its insertion, but not necessarily its integration, into HE has taken place over a number of decades and for different reasons and as a result of a range of political, ideological, institutional and educational drivers’. Thus, it could be argued that the ensuing debate on entrepreneurship in general and the impact of entrepreneurship education in particular is both complex and controversial (see, for instance, Henry et al., 2003). The ongoing reflects not only the complexity of arguments, claims and counterclaims, but also the increasing involvement and specific needs of a wide range of major as well as minor stakeholders, all of whom can legitimately claim to have an interest in, and an impact upon, various aspects of entrepreneurship education (Matlay and Carey, 2007). In this chapter the author sets out to examine the impact of stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education in the UK. The structure of the chapter is as follows: the next section critically evaluates the extant literature on stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education; in the following section, the author provides a brief explanation of the research method employed in this research study; the next three sections outline the emergent data and analysis, the perceptions of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders as well as a discussion of the research findings that emerged from 110

Stakeholder participation in entrepreneurship education in the UK

111

this study. The final section includes the concluding remarks, recommendations and implications for educators engaged in entrepreneurship education. Stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education As an emerging field of academic and practitioner research in the UK, entrepreneurship education continues to grow and develop, both in terms or relevance and topicality (Hannon, 2007). Interestingly, however, a vast proportion of the burgeoning specialist literature in this field tends to focus on well-rehearsed aspects and models of entrepreneurship education, such as curriculum development, programme delivery, assessment, quality of provision and student experiences. Although questions about who or what ‘drives’ entrepreneurship education in the UK have been raised from time to time in various forums, the author could locate only a small number of empirically rigorous studies dedicated to a stakeholder approach to entrepreneurship education or aimed specifically at this aspect of educational research. Considering the topicality and rapid growth of entrepreneurship education in the UK as well as elsewhere (Hannon, 2006; Jones, 2007; Solomon, 2007), the paucity of pertinent research on stakeholder involvement, expectations and impact is both surprising and disconcerting. The research study upon which this chapter is based was designed to redress this imbalance and provide empirically rigorous data on stakeholder involvement in, and influence upon, entrepreneurship education in the UK. The concept of ‘stakeholder’ (as opposed to ‘shareholder’) influence and involvement in strategy formation and related management of change became popular during the 1980s, with the rise of strategic management theory. According to Freeman (1984, p. 46) a definition of stakeholder, penned in the context of strategic management theory, incorporates ‘any group or individuals who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives’. Similarly, in a higher education context, Amaral and Magalhaes (2002, p. 2) define a stakeholder as ‘a person or entity with a legitimate interest in higher education and who, as such, acquires the right to intervene’. There are important similarities as well as differences between the two definitions, most of which are implicitly grounded within the scope and specific context for which it has been developed. For example, in both definitions, the concept of ‘stakeholder’ covers financial investments (that is, shareholders’ outlays and funding streams) as well as non-financial interests, including indirect and less tangible involvement and/or commitment. The list of stakeholders can include the specific interests of a wide range of individuals, organizations and institutions as well as those of community and government representatives (Matlay, 1998). In traditional small, medium or large enterprises, profit is the main, but by no means the only organizational objective. Any financial surplus can be retained as reserves, distributed to shareholders as dividends and to employees as bonuses (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001). In contrast, the primary goal of social enterprises involves a range of social objectives, and surpluses can be reinvested for the benefit of the community or society at large (Jones and Keogh, 2006). In the case of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK (with the exception of one private university), the list of stakeholders that can claim a legitimate interest in education or influence related outcomes is considerably longer than that of both forprofit and social enterprises (Matlay, 2006a). The situation is further complicated by the ongoing debate on the legitimacy as well as the right of various stakeholders to intervene

112


or influence component aspects of HEIs’ activity (Matlay, 2006b). As registered charities, HEIs are expected to break even and any financial surpluses must be reinvested for educational purposes (Archer et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the continuing decline of relevant direct and indirect funding for HEIs in the UK and elsewhere (Barr, 2004) has increasingly forced them to ‘act entrepreneurially’ and seek external sources of income (Matlay, 2005; Pratt and Poole, 2000). By providing various business and consultancy services to local and regional customers, their range of stakeholders has grown significantly, in particular in terms of services for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) falling both within and beyond traditional educational catchment boundaries (Mitra and Matlay, 2003). Various models have been put forward in an attempt to identify stakeholders with an interest in education. Reavil (1998) started by proposing two simplistic models based on product and service analogies, but these proved inadequate largely because each identified a different set of ‘educational customers’. Interestingly, both his models are based upon the assumption that HEIs behave like traditional suppliers and therefore seek to identify the needs and requirements of their main customers. Students, institutional employees and future employers of graduates and postgraduates who complete a university degree emerged as major stakeholders in HEIs (Koksal and Egitman, 1998). Pereira and DaSilva (2003, p. 673), however, argue that there are conflicting views on HEI stakeholders because ‘universities, traditionally, have two main goals: to create and to disseminate knowledge . . . the creation of knowledge is done through research and its dissemination is done through education’. Unfortunately, however, this view neglects other important means of dissemination, such as innovations, inventions, consultation and intellectual rights. Other researchers on this topic also point to multiple customers and/or stakeholders (see, for instance, Hwarng and Teo, 2001; Kanji and Tambi, 1999). In a typology based upon the perceived importance level attributed to educational linkages, Robinson and Long (1987) classify HEI customers into primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders. Students at various levels of their studies fall into the first category, followed by employers and educational authorities in the second, and validating bodies, alumni, parents and extended families in the third. It should be noted, however, that recent changes and developments in entrepreneurship education provision have had a widespread impact not only upon the relevant curriculum and its provision but also on the context and platform within which various models are operating. This is clearly highlighted in the results emerging from a longitudinal study of entrepreneurship education carried out in the UK by Matlay and Carey (2007). For instance, it emerges that entrepreneurship education is no longer provided exclusively in business schools and that it is increasingly made available in a wide range of non-business oriented faculties and/or departments across the whole spectrum of HEI teaching provision (see Carey and Naudin, 2006; Matlay and Carey, 2008). Furthermore, there has been a significant increase in the use of technology and electronic delivery platforms which had the effect of widening access to, and the variety of, entrepreneurship education provision as well as enhancing and enriching related student experiences (Carey et al., 2007; Matlay and Smith, 2008). Despite the recent growth in entrepreneurship education research in the UK, the full extent of stakeholders’ involvement and their impact upon entrepreneurial outcomes remains unclear. Can it be assumed that stakeholders’ interest and involvement in postcompulsory education is also representative of, and relevant to, various entrepreneurship


113

education models and provision? In their review of alternative models of entrepreneurship education in the USA, Streeter et al. (2002) note that there exist two generic types of provision, which they label as ‘magnet’ and ‘radiant’ programmes. The ‘magnet’ type of entrepreneurship education tends to attract prospective students into relevant courses provided by business schools. In contrast, ‘radiant’ programmes feature courses that focus upon contexts, designed specifically for non-business students. Their survey shows that about 75 per cent of ranked entrepreneurship programmes in the USA follow a magnet model and have university-wide appeal. The authors point out that ‘while the radiant model is extremely appealing to students, parents and alumni, the magnet model is easier to administer and represents the pathway of least resistance’ (Streeter et al., 2002, p. 3). Importantly, however, they conclude that although the magnet model of entrepreneurship education might be simpler to implement, in the long term it could lead to conflict amongst various stakeholders and therefore might not be widely shared across a university. Vollmers et al. (2001) claim that stakeholders in the USA, such as students, educators, alumni and members of the business community, have an important role in the development of entrepreneurship education curriculum that is relevant for local and regional development. They argue that ‘by obtaining feedback from each stakeholder group, a University can determine how to best meet their needs . . . it is important for a University to understand what graduating students will be expected to know when they enter the workforce, and what skills and abilities will be valued and serve them well in their career’ (Vollmers et al., 2001, p. 1). Similarly, Czuchry et al. (2004) found that strategic cooperation between entrepreneurship teaching staff and external representatives from the US business, industry and professional communities has yielded tangible benefits for both internal and external stakeholders. It should be noted that anecdotal evidence comparing stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education in the UK with the experience of other industrially developed nations positions their impact near the bottom of the scale, just above New Zealand but well below the USA, Canada and Australia. Interestingly, however, the author could not locate any empirically rigorous research to substantiate such allegations and the field remains open to speculation. Research sample and methodology The telephone survey upon which this chapter is based forms part of a wider, longitudinal study of entrepreneurship education and training provided by UK HEIs. In January 2008, 439 respondents who took part in longitudinal research conducted by the author were invited to participate in a telephone survey related to the impact of stakeholders upon entrepreneurship education. A total of 297 (88.39 per cent) respondents agreed to participate and provided data in relation to their involvement in, and perceived impact upon, entrepreneurship education in the UK. The 11.61 per cent of respondents who declined to be interviewed claimed to be either too busy or, due to a variety of personal reasons, unwilling to participate in the survey. The emerging results are outlined and analysed in the next section of this chapter. Data and analysis The specialist literature on stakeholder involvement in higher education in the UK mirrors a complex and often contradictory map of interrelationships involving a wide

114


range of individuals, organizations and government agencies. Definitional difficulties add to the complexities involved in mapping stakeholder involvement in, and expectations of, entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. In this chapter, the author sets out to deconstruct the conceptual framework relating to stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education and, by building upon previous research, to reconstruct a meaningful map of stakeholder perception, expectation and impact. Internal and external stakeholders As a starting point, the results confirmed that stakeholders involved in entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs belong to two basic categories (cf. Reavil, 1998): 1. 2.

Internal stakeholders – such as students, faculty teaching, research, administration, support and management staff. External stakeholders – including parents, alumni, entrepreneurs, representative of business, commerce and professional bodies.

Interestingly, however, this distinction is mainly conceptual and it becomes considerably blurred when stakeholders’ perceptions, involvement and expectations are taken into consideration. In the case of both internal and external stakeholders, the research has highlighted three discrete perceptions of involvement and expectations, which can be usefully mapped across short-, medium- and long-term timescales. Thus, in the short term, students can be involved in a range of undergraduate and postgraduate entrepreneurship education courses. Dependent upon the mode of their study, their expectation of course completion varies considerably from ‘on time’ to ‘as soon as possible’. In some HEIs, there is flexibility built into various approaches to entrepreneurship education, and students can opt for, or choose amongst, a number of relevant options and/or modules. Similarly, there is flexibility in relation to the topics and modules to be completed under the generic entrepreneurship education label. In the medium term, students can reasonably expect to continue their education and/or return to study new aspects of entrepreneurship education. They can also return to update their knowledge and/or upgrade their qualifications. For instance, some universities offer entrepreneurship education at undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral levels as well as providing relevant short courses at diploma or certificate levels. In the long term, students – as alumni – can expect to become or remain involved with their faculties and specialist staff, participate in both educational and social events or support various entrepreneurship activities. Former students have also shown a preference for commissioning business training or consultancy from faculties or individual staff with whom they were familiar or had positive experiences during and/or after completing their studies. Similarly, the position of faculty teaching and research staff is also dependent upon the nature of their employment contract and the time commitment relating to their involvement in entrepreneurship education. Increasingly, teaching and research staff involved in the design, delivery and assessment of entrepreneurship education courses are either engaged part of their time within a wider discipline portfolio, or actually employed on a part-time basis. Furthermore, a large number of teaching staff are involved on ‘fractional’ or ‘visiting lecturer’ contracts and commit a relatively small proportion of their working time to entrepreneurship education. Some ‘teaching fellows’ are entrepreneurs


115

who enjoy working with students or earn a regular and guaranteed income in part-time positions that suit their lifestyle and other commitments. Most researchers in this area are also involved in the delivery of external projects and can use teaching to either top up their work portfolio or subsidize their earnings through teaching, marking and dissertation supervision. In recent years, teaching and entrepreneurial careers have become intertwined to the extent that in the medium and long terms, both teaching and research staff are likely to change their jobs or rebalance their commitment between and within HEIs. They may even exit the educational system completely, either on a temporary or a permanent basis. Their involvement, commitment and impact can vary over time, from full- and part-time to occasional, intermittent or no involvement at all. The position of administrative and management staff is more predictable in relation to entrepreneurship education, but can also be subjected to some degree of variation and change. In most cases, this category of university staff is likely to be involved in a wide range of administrative and/or managerial tasks that relate only partly to entrepreneurship education in its many forms. Interestingly, however, the involvement and impact of management staff is usually inversely proportional with their position in the HEI hierarchy. Thus, the higher up a manager is in the departmental or university managerial structure, the more remote his or her involvement and impact in entrepreneurship education is likely to become. The prospect of internal promotion can significantly affect their attitudes, involvement and impact on entrepreneurship education. As an anomaly to this typology, some members of the board of governors in HEIs occasionally cross the boundaries of internal and external stakeholder positions. Chosen from amongst a variety of political, business and community backgrounds, external members of the board of governors are called upon to make important strategic decisions and become involved in a wide range of decision-making processes. Due to their knowledge, experience and political influence, they can have a significant impact on promoting and supporting entrepreneurship education in an HEI. As external stakeholders, the parents of students undergoing entrepreneurship education and their extended families have vested interests in the welfare and future employment prospect of these individuals. Parents, in particular, are increasingly expected to provide financial support to their children in higher education, a situation that can impact considerably upon the rest of the family. As a large proportion of entrepreneurship education students enter employment upon graduation (before setting up their own businesses), future employers also claim an interest in their education. This is particularly relevant to owner/managers in SMEs who are increasingly called upon to ‘mop up’ the growing number of specialist graduates and postgraduates entering the labour market. Existing entrepreneurs have an interest in the capacity of entrepreneurship education to deliver a well-educated and informed population of future entrepreneurs that are less likely to fail or behave fraudulently. Graduates tend to contribute to a better image of hard working entrepreneurs and successful individuals who are interested not only in their own wealth but also in the welfare of less fortunate members of the community. For similar reasons, members of the wider business, commerce and social communities can also claim to have a vested interest in entrepreneurship education. The government and governmental agencies have an interest in promoting and supporting entrepreneurship education as a means of enhancing the number and quality of entrepreneurs that

116


are active in the UK economy. As a result, the SME sector is a healthy, dynamic and expanding area of economic activity, providing a seedbed for innovation and growth that can positively impact upon communities and the nation. Perceptions of primary, secondary and tertiary stakeholders The categorization of stakeholders into primary, secondary and tertiary importance to entrepreneurship education (cf. Robinson and Long, 1987) proved largely dependent upon respondent perceptions in relation to their respective input and impact. As a result, there exists some variation and overlap with regard to who belongs to which stakeholder category. The respondents’ perceptions in relation to the importance of various stakeholder categories are analysed below. 1.

Primary stakeholders ●

●

2.

Students felt that they, together with the teaching and research staff (full- and parttime as well as visiting staff) involved in entrepreneurship education, belonged to the primary stakeholder category. In the secondary stakeholder category, students included their parents and extended family, previous students of entrepreneurship education and their families as well as universities and their employees. Finally, in the tertiary stakeholder category, students incorporated prospective students and their families, government and governmental agencies, commerce and industry, the nation and society. In the opinion of teaching and research staff involved in entrepreneurship education, students were the most important stakeholder group. Other groups belonging to the primary stakeholder category were teaching and research staff involved directly in the design, delivery and assessment of students in entrepreneurship education, including contributing alumni, entrepreneurs, practitioners and business people. In the secondary stakeholder category, teaching and research staff included the student’s family, alumni and their families, entrepreneurs and future employers. In the tertiary stakeholder group they included the government and related agencies, industry, commerce and the nation. Secondary stakeholders

●

●

●

The parents of students undergoing entrepreneurship education and their extended families felt that students and teaching staff who were directly involved in educating them were the most important stakeholders. Of secondary importance they considered themselves, future employers, entrepreneurs and members of the business community. In the tertiary category they included the government, governmental agencies and the community. The alumni conferred primary importance upon students and staff who were directly involved in entrepreneurship education. In the secondary category they included themselves, parents, family, future employers and existing entrepreneurs. In the tertiary stakeholder group, alumni included commerce and industry, government and governmental agencies as well as the nation. Future employers claimed that students and relevant faculty staff were the primary


●

3.

117

stakeholders followed by student families, future employers and other entrepreneurs in the secondary group and the government and the nation as tertiary stakeholders. Entrepreneurs placed students and their families as well as alumni and their families in the primary stakeholder category. In the secondary stakeholder category they included relevant faculty members, other entrepreneurs and employers in industry and commerce. Government and related agencies were placed in the tertiary stakeholder category. Tertiary stakeholders

●

●

●

In the opinion of industry and commerce representatives, current as well as former students and their families belonged to the primary stakeholder category. They placed HEI faculties and their staff, entrepreneurs and future employers in the secondary stakeholder category. Representatives of various industry and commerce organisations and the government were positioned in the tertiary stakeholder category. Community representatives felt that students and their families were the primary stakeholders in entrepreneurship education, followed by HEI staff and employers in the secondary category. In the tertiary stakeholder group they included entrepreneurs, employers, industry and members of their communities. Government and their representatives also felt that students and their families were the primary stakeholders in entrepreneurship education. In the secondary stakeholder group they included faculty staff, HEIs, the government and related agencies and employers of various sizes. Members of industry, commerce and local communities were incorporated in the tertiary stakeholder category.

Discussion It is clear from this research study that, although there are variations in perceptions amongst stakeholders, they remain focused upon their interests and that ultimately these influence not only the extent of their involvement but also the duration of participation in, and contribution to, entrepreneurship education. The stakeholder position of students and HEI staff involved in entrepreneurship education across various faculties is illustrative of the extent to which personal interests determine the choice, intensity and duration of their involvement in this specialised aspect of higher education. An examination of behaviour patterns, resource investment (for example, time, effort and money) and expectations shows that those students who became involved in entrepreneurship education at undergraduate and/or postgraduate levels chose deliberately to engage in this aspect of higher education. Although the involvement over time depended largely upon the mode of study, a student’s commitment represented a significant investment made with the expectation that entrepreneurship education would pave the way towards a career (and related lifestyle) in entrepreneurship. Students expected to learn ‘about’ and ‘for’ entrepreneurship and also gain firsthand knowledge and experience in a variety of interrelated activities which were relevant for starting and then managing their own businesses. In terms of impact on entrepreneurship education, students felt that their feedback and commitment provided teaching

118


staff with the best guide for curriculum design and development, delivery platform and mode of assessment. Faculty members were also motivated, guided and driven by their own interests, knowledge and experience in entrepreneurship and related activities, including self-employment and intrapreneurship as well as business start-up and management. It was interesting to note that due to demand for teaching and research staff in this specialized topic, most of the respondents have found the ‘right type’ of employment for their interests, knowledge and experience, not only in business schools but also in other faculties that promoted entrepreneurship and related education. They expected to make a considerable impact upon their students’ future careers, whether it was in employment, self-employment or small business ownership. A high proportion of staff were also involved in entrepreneurship research and/or activities of their own, including private consultancy. Most felt that their specialist field was developing fast and required new knowledge, innovation and also ‘hands on’ experience. They appear to have successfully balanced and combined the theory and practice of entrepreneurship with their teaching, research and entrepreneurial activities. In comparison, the involvement and expectations of faculty management, administrative and support staff were more limited and related mainly to routine administrative and managerial tasks. Some managers, however, professed an interest in widening entrepreneurship education across their faculties for the benefit of other HEI employees who, in their opinion, could have gained from behaving more entrepreneurially. The impact and expectations of management, administrative and support staff were relatively low, reflecting the level of their involvement in entrepreneurship education. Low and very low levels of involvement in, and impact on, entrepreneurship education were found amongst the students’ parents and their extended families, employers, entrepreneurs, alumni and members of the local community. For instance, parents generally contributed financially and/or in various other ways to their children’s education, but this was not perceived as specific to entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, the impetus for such support and the expected benefits accruing from it were considered mostly social and cultural in nature rather than purely economic. Local employers and entrepreneurs contributed to a limited extent to entrepreneurship education by occasionally providing relevant knowledge and experience as well as limited work placements for the benefit of ‘budding entrepreneurs’. In their case, financial donations and contributions proved to be the exception rather than the norm. In contrast, those alumni who chose to cultivate or maintain links with their faculties preferred to make financial donations and/or deliver the occasional guest lecture for the benefit of future entrepreneurs. It appears that the representatives of local communities provided mostly encouragement and a proactive environment for future entrepreneurs, both during their studies and after graduation. It proved difficult to gauge the level of government and related agencies’ involvement and their impact upon entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. Their main support remained focused on start-ups and growth-oriented SMEs at local, regional and national levels. There is a lack of transparency and clarity in relation to financial support for entrepreneurship education and a growing credibility gap between HE funding realities and government rhetoric on higher education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular.


119

Conclusions and implications for entrepreneurship education In this chapter, the author sets out to deconstruct stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education and, by building upon previous research, to construct an empirically rigorous map of stakeholder perceptions, expectations, involvement and impact. The data upon which this chapter is based allows a realistic mapping and evaluation of stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. The emerging stakeholder map of involvement in entrepreneurship education in UK is suggestive of complex and wide-ranging interrelationships taking place across several socio-economic and political dimensions. Entrepreneurship itself is a multifaceted concept that is rooted deeply in the contemporary economic reality and governmentinspired rhetoric. It is symptomatic of, and embedded in, the complexities of an ‘entrepreneurship culture’ that has been promoted and reinforced in the UK by consecutive governments since its emergence in the early 1980s. Furthermore, it has been widely supported through a range of initiatives aimed directly at promoting an entrepreneurial philosophy and related outlook, expectations and lifestyle. As a result, stakeholder involvement in entrepreneurship education is explicit, widespread and linked to ongoing educational developments that have radically transformed management structures and accountability at all levels of the UK educational system. This has important implications for entrepreneurship educators as well as those stakeholders who are directly involved in curriculum design, delivery and assessment. Although not consistent across the whole spectrum of stakeholder impact and interaction, a typology emerges that takes into consideration stakeholder perception and extent of involvement in, and expectations from, entrepreneurship education in UK HEIs. Students and faculty members who are directly involved in entrepreneurship education emerged as primary stakeholders. Their participation, involvement, expectations and impact upon entrepreneurship education is significant. In designing the relevant curriculum, entrepreneurship educators should consider both the needs and expectations of their students. Constructive feedback recorded across the sample of HEIs in this study demonstrated that student needs focused narrowly upon specific skills for venture creation and small business management as well as more general, conceptual and contextual knowledge about entrepreneurship. In this context, the involvement and impact of staff with entrepreneurial knowledge and experience, coupled with the participation of entrepreneurs and practitioners have proved very successful in the design, delivery and assessment of effective and relevant entrepreneurship education courses. The expectations, involvement and impact of other stakeholders, such as parents, family, alumni, employers and entrepreneurs vary from low to medium. In terms of contribution to entrepreneurship education, however, their impact proved valuable not only in the short term, but also from a medium- to long-term perspective. The parents and families of students engaged in entrepreneurship education are increasingly called upon to support and subsidize this aspect of vocational education. They have expectations relating to the medium- to long-term impact, relevance and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education. In their view, entrepreneurship education must provide a high return on their investment in it. Other secondary and tertiary stakeholders can help contextualize entrepreneurship education within a wider socio-economic and political perspective. Although not directly involved in the design, delivery and assessment of entrepreneurship education, their views represent the needs and expectations of industry, employers,

120


professional bodies and the wider community within which graduate entrepreneurs are likely to live and operate. As such, they can enrich the curriculum and delivery of entrepreneurship education courses as well as contribute to their realism and effectiveness. The author could draw only scant conclusions in relation to the impact of government and related agencies on entrepreneurship education. More transparency and clarity is needed in order to bridge the growing credibility gap that exists between government rhetoric and HE funding realities in the UK. Nevertheless, it is suggested that future initiatives in this area of educational development should focus narrowly upon the needs and expectations of stakeholders involved in entrepreneurship education. Any meaningful government intervention must include extensive consultation with both primary and secondary stakeholders, and take into consideration the views of others who profess to have an interest in entrepreneurship education. Only through consultation and cooperation amongst stakeholders can the UK government ensure that its policies and initiatives reach the targeted sector of the population and that the taxpayers’ money is spent in a focused and cost-efficient manner. Bibliography Amaral, A. and A. Magalhaes (2002), ‘The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance’, in A. Amaral, G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance, New York: Springer. Archer, L., A. Ross, M. Hutchings and R. Gilchrist (2003), Higher Education and Social Class: Issues of Inclusion and Exclusion, London: Routledge Falmer. Barclays Bank (2005), ‘Average graduate debt £13,501 up 12 per cent’, available at: http://www.newsroom. barclays.com/content/detail.asp?ReleaseID=276&NewsAreaID=2 (accessed 4 July 2008). Barr, N. (2004), ‘Higher education funding’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20 (2), 264–83. BBC News (2006), ‘Student debt “averages £13,252”’, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4790583. stm (accessed 4 July 2008). Boem, B., A. Egyed, D. Port, A. Shah, J. Kwan and R. Madachy (1998), ‘A stakeholder win-win approach to software engineering education’, Annals of Software Engineering, 6, 295–321. Borzaga, C. and J. Defourny (eds) (2001), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London: Routledge. Carey, C. and A. Naudin (2006), ‘Enterprise curriculum for creative industries students: an exploration of current attitudes and issues’, Education and Training, 48 (7), 518–31. Carey, C., K. Smith and L. Martin (2007), ‘Supporting enterprise educators; how to promote enterprise in new areas’, paper presented at the 30th ISBE conference, Glasgow, November. Charney, A.H. and G.D. Libecap (2003), ‘The contribution of entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the Berger Program’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (3), 385–418. Chen, K.C. and D. Groves (1999), ‘The importance of philosophical relationships between tourism and hospitality curricula’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (1), 37–42. Cooper, C. and J. Westlake (1998), ‘Stakeholders and tourism education: curriculum planning using a quality management framework’, Industry and Higher Education, 12 (2), 93–100. Czuchry, A., M. Yasin and M. Gonzales (2004), ‘Effective entrepreneurial education: a framework for innovation and implementation’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 7 (1), 39–56. Dickson, P.H. and G.T. Solomon (2008), ‘Entrepreneurial selection and success: does education matter?’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (2), 239–58. Dobson, L.R. and R.F. Tas (2004), ‘A practical approach to curriculum development: a case study’, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 16 (1), 39–46. Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA: Pitman. Hannon, P. (2006), ‘Teaching pigeons to dance: sense and meaning in entrepreneurship education’, Education and Training, 48 (5), 296–308. Hannon, P. (2007), ‘Enterprise for all? The fragility of enterprise provision across England’s HEIs’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 183–210. Henry, C., F. Hill and C. Leitch (2003), Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Aldershot: Ashgate. Hwarng, H.B. and C. Teo (2001), ‘Translating customers’ voices into operations requirements: a QFD application in higher education’, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 18 (2), 195–225.


121

Jones, C. (2007), ‘Creating the reasonable adventurer: the co-evolution of student and learning environment’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 228–40. Jones, D. and W. Keogh (2006), ‘Social enterprise: a case of terminological ambiguity and complexity’, Social Enterprise Journal, 2 (1), 11–26. Kanji, G.K. and M.B. Tambi (1999), ‘Total quality management in UK higher education institutions’, Total Quality Management, 10 (1), 129–53. Koksal, G. and A. Egitman (1998), ‘Planning and design of industrial engineering education quality’, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 35 (3), 639–42. Kotler, P. and K.F. Fox (1985), Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Matlay, H. (1998), ‘The view from the bridge: stakeholders’ involvement in, and impact upon, vocational education’, research seminar paper, SME Centre, University of Warwick Business School, Coventry. Matlay, H. (1999a), The impact of internal and external stakeholders in UK HEIs: a pilot study, Working Paper WP 002, Global Independent Research, Coventry. Matlay, H. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12 (4), 627–43. Matlay, H. (2006a), ‘Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?’, Education and Training, 48 (5), 293–95. Matlay, H. (2006b), ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education, part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter?’, Education and Training, 48 (8/9), 704–18. Matlay, H. (2008), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (2), 382–96. Matlay, H. and C. Carey (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 252–63. Matlay, H. and C. Carey (2008), ‘Entrepreneurs as educators and researchers: evidence from live case studies’, paper presented at the ICSB Conference, Halifax, Canada, June. Matlay, H. and K. Smith (2008), ‘The use of technology in delivering entrepreneurship education in the UK: past present and future’, paper presented at the ICSB Conference, Halifax, Canada, June. Mitra, J. and H. Matlay (2003), ‘Entrepreneurship and learning: from theory to practice’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3 (1), 7–16. Penaluna, A. and K. Penaluna (2006), ‘Business paradigms in Einstellung: entrepreneurship education – a creative industries perspective’, Working Paper 033/2006, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham. Pereira, M.A. and M.T. DaSilva (2003), ‘Stakeholders in university education’, paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, Atlanta, GE, April. Pratt, G. and D. Poole (2000), ‘International strategies as a response to market forces: directions and trends’, Journal of Institutional Research in Australia, 7 (1), 9–25. Reavil, L.R. (1998), ‘Quality assessment, total quality management and the stakeholders in the UK higher education system’, Managing Service Quality, 8 (1), 55–63. Robinson, A. and G. Long (1987), ‘Marketing further education: products or people’, NATFHE Journal, March, 42–51. Scotland, M. (2006), ‘Higher education program curricula models in tourism and hospitality education: a review of the literature’, paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, Columbus, OH, February, pp. 801–08. Smith, G. and C. Cooper (2000), ‘Competitive approaches to tourism and hospitality curriculum design’, Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1), 90–95. Solomon, G.T. (2007), ‘An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14 (2), 168–82. Streeter, D.H., J.P. Jaquette and K. Hovis (2002), ‘University-wide entrepreneurship education: alternative models and current trends’, Working Paper WP 2002–02, Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, New York. Vollmers, S.M., J.M. Ratliff and B. Hoge (2001), A Framework for Developing Entrepreneurship Curriculum through Stakeholder Involvement, Morehead, KY: Morehead State University.

9

Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment: a multicultural perspective Catherine Coron

Introduction In The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory (Casson, 1982, p. 10), Mark Casson built a theoretical link between human capital and entrepreneurship, leading us to an entrepreneurial meaning of human capital: In recent statistical analysis of growth, differences in the quality of labour and in the efficiency of resource use have been attributed to differences in the endowment of ‘human capital’. Human capital is often assumed to reflect technical skills acquired through education and training, but it may also reflect the underlying entrepreneurial abilities of the population. In this case, to fully eliminate the ‘residual’ from the explanation it is necessary to have a theory of the entrepreneur. When economic growth and development is considered in a historical perspective, the role of the entrepreneur comes into sharper focus. Entrepreneurship appears as a personal quality which enables certain individuals to make decisions with far-reaching consequences.

The following analyses try to question both empirically and comparatively entrepreneurs’ ‘personal qualities’ such as their education paths according to their countries of origin. This will enable us to measure the impact of higher education systems on entrepreneurship. According to Mark Casson ‘One of the main reasons why the entrepreneur has become a cultural hero of capitalism is that he is able to rise from humble origins to a position of power and status’ (Casson 1982, p. 200). In this chapter, we would like to question and oppose the notions of ‘self-made’ and ‘self-educated’ entrepreneur, thanks to an empirical study. Examining the entrepreneur’s higher education background also appears as justified if we consider Alain Fayolle and Bernard Surlemont’s idea about entrepreneurial intention which can only exist if ‘the entrepreneur is certain about his entrepreneurial abilities’, and ‘higher education institutions do play an important part in this process’ (Fayolle and Surlemont, 2009, p. 8). The theoretical background of our analysis is examined first. Then, the results of the survey will be presented in order to answer these issues. These are followed by their interpretation within an entrepreneurial education perspective. I.

The theoretical background

The definition of the entrepreneur The first theoretical question is about the definition of the entrepreneur we refer to in the context of this research work. Although its homogeneity is increasingly questioned (Atamer and Torres, 2007), Joseph Schumpeter’s 1926 model of the entrepreneur as someone who creates innovation thanks to ‘creative destruction’ (Schumpeter, 1935) will be given priority in the following text. For him, the entrepreneur must be seen as 122

Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment

123

an innovator who implements change within markets through the carrying out of new combinations which may take several forms such as the introduction of a new good or quality thereof, the implementation of a new method of production, the opening of a new market, the contest of a new source of supply of new materials or parts, or the carrying out of a new organization in an industry. This survey cannot also but echo Octave Gélinier’s idea of the necessity for each country to be strongly entrepreneur oriented (Gélinier, 1976). In 2000, following Louis-Jacques Filion and Hans Landström, Alain Fayolle presented a synthesis of the three different approaches (what? who? and how?) where he suggested using the ‘who approach’ when looking at the educational background, which is the approach favoured in this survey. According to Fayolle, the entrepreneur should be defined by his or her actions and behaviour (Fayolle 2007). This will be the approach chosen here in order to construe the result of our empirical study so as to find out if the national cultural environment does influence the development of certain types of entrepreneurs. ‘Self-made’ versus ‘self-educated’ entrepreneur The two notions may look very similar, but if we analyse them more cautiously we find that the idea of a ‘self-made’ entrepreneur refers more to a broader context alluding to the sociological, cultural and historical background of a particular country, in this case the USA, as well as its education system. That is the reason why, to really remain in our field of research, the notion of ‘self-educated’ entrepreneur will be favoured as much as possible. Furthermore, the type of education a ‘self-educated’ entrepreneur gets is quite different in its nature from that of an entrepreneur who went to university or a business school. In order to remain within the scope of our study we will not take this difference into consideration, even though it remains a very interesting question to be studied. II.

The survey

A.

Methodology

The choice of the different countries In a presentation at Aberdeen Conference on Entrepreneurship in September 2007 followed by an article which was published in 2008, I had already started the comparative survey for France and the UK (Coron, 2008b). Those two countries were chosen to find out about the impact of two different higher education systems on the entrepreneurial activity of each country. The other countries the USA, China and Canada were chosen to try to make any distinctive cultural differences appear more relevant between English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. The English and French languages represent here the cultural factor for each country. China is present to enhance the comparison between these two spheres and because of the importance of Hong Kong entrepreneurs who belong to the English-speaking world. Canada is known to be both under French and English influences. It is the place where we may try to see which cultural entrepreneurial features are stronger. Collecting the data As was the case for the UK and France, the survey for each country had to be made of at least 50 entrepreneurs. For some countries it was more difficult to find data than for others. For American entrepreneurs, Forbes world ranking brought

124


Table 9.1 Number of entrepreneurs in the top 20 world billionaires (2008 Forbes ranking) USA 4

Hong Kong

France

Canada

UK

1

1

0

0

Table 9.2 Number of entrepreneurs in the top 50 world billionaires (2008 Forbes ranking) USA 22

Hong Kong

France

Canada

UK

3

3

1

1

most of the information required, whereas the UK, Canada and France research required more time and effort because the sources came from different origins. Chinese entrepreneurs were the most difficult to find out about. For many Chinese entrepreneurs, no information on their education was available and sometimes the information on the company’s website or in the specialized press was only in Chinese. Since I was looking for successful entrepreneurs, I chose the first appearing in Forbes ranking, leaving aside those who had inherited their business and were not ‘innovative’ entrepreneurs. As far as Canadian entrepreneurs were concerned, I searched a list which can be found online from Profit Magazine,1 another list came from an education institution2 and finally a reference document on Canadian manufacturing success stories3 published on the website of the Canadian Department of Industry. Many details were corroborated thanks to the Canadian encyclopedia online4 as well as the websites of each studied companies. The survey is biased because I had no other choice but to refer to different types of sources. Tables 9.1 and 9.2 show that American entrepreneurs tend more than entrepreneurs coming from the other countries to become billionaires. It might be also interesting to notice that the first British entrepreneur comes one hundred and seventh in this ranking which considers wealth as the criterion of success. Finally, it was more difficult to find the required information related to Chinese entrepreneurs both because the websites were usually in Chinese and the layout was less standardized. The survey’s typology of entrepreneurs In the Appendix, entrepreneurs are defined according to a certain typology. ‘Founders’ created a company; ‘heirs’ inherited the company and ‘traders’ had purchased it. Both had to be ‘developers’ according to Olivier Basso’s definition so they were ‘innovators within the company’ (Basso, 2006; 2007) to make it flourish. B. The results The results of this survey may be found the Appendix at the end of this chapter. Table 9.3 also presents them and will enable us to develop our analysis. What immediately strikes us in the result of this survey is the fact that most American entrepreneurs went to university, a percentage of 78 per cent. Furthermore, their training and educational paths can clearly be identified, as far as the columns ‘Not found’ and

Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment Table 9.3

Synthetic results of the survey on entrepreneurs’ training profiles Total

France UK USA Canada China Source:

125

58 62 64 51 52

Not found

3 5 0 2 21

5% 8% 0% 4% 40%

Secondary education 12 28 14 9 4

21% 45% 21% 17% 8%

University education 21 24 50 31 20

36% 39% 78% 61% 38%

Engineering or business schools 18 1 1 2 2

31% 2% 1% 4% 4%

Other

4 4 0 7 5

7% 6% 0% 14% 10%

Author’s own computation; also see Coron (2008b).

‘Other’ are empty. Canada is the only country with a percentage that can be compared to the American level, as 61 per cent of entrepreneurs went to university. France, the UK and China with, respectively, 36 per cent, 39 per cent and 38 per cent lag far behind. They are nearly all in the same poor situation as regards the entrepreneurial orientation of their higher education systems. This is rather surprising because, in this case, the fact that the various systems are organized differently, particularly the French and the British systems, does not seem to have an impact on the capacity of the system to foster entrepreneurship. Both the rather high level of accessibility of the French university system as well as the selective British system are dissuasive for entrepreneurship, particularly when they are compared with the Canadian and American higher education systems. What we may conclude from this phenomenon is that the entrepreneurial orientation of the academic syllabus in Canada and the USA is higher than in the other surveyed countries. The second important comment about the results of this survey is the fact that most British and Chinese successful entrepreneurs are ‘self-educated’, 45 per cent of the British only attended secondary education, while 40 per cent of Chinese entrepreneurs belong to the ‘not found category’. Thus, it seems that entrepreneurs do not feel they need to invest in human capital within the British and Chinese university systems. However, the situation in France appears totally different if we consider the ‘engineering and business schools’, which show that 67 per cent of entrepreneurs have a higher education degree. This is comparable to the situation in Canada and the USA. Yet, the duality of the French system of higher education makes it appear totally different from the others. So it may seem paradoxical to imagine they can constitute a coherent whole as far as entrepreneurship is concerned, and a comparison with the UK and the USA seems to be difficult without a closer scrutiny of the diverse aspects of the French dual system. III.

Interpretations

The ‘not available’ category Some famous entrepreneurs apparently do not want to unveil the mystery of their training profiles. I finally decided to leave them in the survey because I think that there is a hidden message in this deliberate secrecy. Since the great majority had chosen transparency, except in China, I suppose that entrepreneurs who do not want to let people know about their training paths also belong to the self-educated category. The country where

126


this proportion is the highest is China where information is still really difficult to find. One of the Chinese companies did not even have a website. Entrepreneurship education and minority representation Mark Casson also wrote that ‘One of the most interesting features of successful entrepreneurs is that they are frequently drawn from minority groups in society – groups that find alternative avenues of social advancement closed to them’ (Casson, 1982, p. 11). The survey also shows whether the combination of any given entrepreneurial context with a higher education system may help individuals belonging to a minority to climb the social ladder. In the UK the number of entrepreneurs with foreign origins is 7 per cent which is much lower than in France where it reaches 15 per cent. Sixteen per cent of American entrepreneurs belong to this category. In China, apart from entrepreneurs moving to live in Hong Kong, which will be discussed later, there is one entrepreneur out of 52 with foreign origins and in Canada we find a proportion of 27 per cent. So, entrepreneurial orientation is much more favourable to individuals with foreign origins in Canada, the USA and France. The entrepreneurial orientation of higher education systems This survey also enabled us to study the impact of the different training systems on entrepreneurship and to find an answer to the question as to whether university prepares students to be ‘entrepreneurs’ in the different countries surveyed. Quite interestingly, if we focus on the 20 richest entrepreneurs in the USA according to Forbes 2008 ranking, the proportion of secondary education students is 40 per cent, which is much higher than if we consider our sample of 50 American entrepreneurs where it is only 21 per cent. These particular results tend to contradict the overall findings. The notion of ‘successful’ or ‘relatively successful’ entrepreneurs would probably need to be examined and defined in order to explain this discrepancy. At first glance, it seems that in the USA some of the qualities and skills which lead to ‘successful enterprise’, if we consider the term as being measured through the personal profit that may be acquired from starting a business, as is the case with Forbes rankings, cannot be acquired at university. The qualities and skills required to become a more ‘successful’ entrepreneur do not appear as being only the result of the American higher education system. So the question of the nature of these qualities and skills and of the way they can be taught remains to be answered. Alain Fayolle in 2005, following other research studies such as Peterman and Kennedy’s in 2003, Moro, Poli and Bernardi’s in 2004 and Hytti and Kuopusjärvi’s in 2004, already questioned the impact of entrepreneurship education. This empirical study tries to measure as well as define entrepreneurship education’s influence in so far as we may get an idea of the proportion of the entrepreneurs who succeeded in each country after they received that type of education. Some remarks on the different higher education systems and an analysis of the major differences between them might be helpful. First, we can mention the existence of a competitive examination to enter most engineering and business schools in France, whereas there is no selection to enter French university. That is why we may define the French system as a dual system. However, entry into great British and American universities is selective. The difficulty for the Chinese university system is that supply cannot meet the demand and all Chinese students cannot go to university because of the huge number of students.5 We may also notice that entrepreneurs


127

in the UK and in China are not afraid of starting their businesses without any degrees, whereas in France they feel more secure with a strong educational training background. This is particularly the case with the smallest companies that appear in the survey. This survey also shows that the business environment in the UK and China is favourable to individuals without any training, which is not the case in France, Canada and the USA. Here, the cultural context seems to be different and we may wonder whether this is due to the lack of higher educational supply in China or to the selective aspect of the British system. Entrepreneurs’ behaviour would tend to compensate for theses two obstacles. In countries such as Canada and France, entrepreneurs usually found the company and leave management operations to other experts, whereas in the USA, the UK and China, original entrepreneurs usually remain at the head of their companies. This can be seen in the fact that there are so many American and Chinese billionaire entrepreneurs and fewer French and Canadians in the Forbes ranking. However, even if we found no British billionaire entrepreneurs, study of the composition of the companies’ management teams and boards of directors clearly showed that British founding entrepreneurs remained in the leading team of the firm whereas this was less the case in France and Canada. When looking for explanations for this ‘cultural’ difference, we might try to find it within the organization of higher education studies and more particularly have a closer look at the way business is taught in each country. Here again, the analysis of the results of the survey appears to be helpful because it may tell us about the trends in entrepreneurs’ training paths according to each particular cultural background. Yet, a deeper study analysing the particular qualities and skills fostered by the higher education system within each country might be an interesting perspective for future research. Indeed, it seems that we need to determine the national peculiarities in order to find out whether we may conduct a comparative study in this field. Higher education background and entrepreneurial activity This survey also tells us about the entrepreneurial use of higher education. If we focus on entrepreneurs who went to university, let us try to see if the subject they chose to study really matches the activity they are involved in. In France 36 per cent of those who went to university, a business school or an engineer school have a degree directly connected to the industry activity they chose. Many engineers do not work in a sector related to their training paths. In the UK higher education matched entrepreneurial activity for 48 per cent, 67 per cent are identified as such in the USA, where most of them do have an MBA, 64 per cent in China and 58 per cent in Canada. So, this criterion can be improved in all the countries studied, but more specifically in France where the entrepreneurial orientation of higher education is much lower than in other countries. The importance of higher education environment and networks This study also helps us measure the efficiency of university networks in terms of entrepreneurial activity. In Canada there are two examples of this university network. First, ‘The roots of Spin Master Ltd date back to 1994, when three university friends, armed with $10 000 set out to build a business’. As far as American entrepreneurs are concerned, teaming up with university friends at the beginning of their enterprise is often part and parcel of the success story which can be found on Forbes.com. For example George Roberts and John Sall ‘met partner James

128


Goodnight as a graduate student at North Carolina State with whom he co-founded SAS Institute in 1976’. Richard DeVos ‘paired up with high school buddy Jay Van Andel’ to create Amway, giant direct-seller of cosmetics and nutritional supplements. Bill Gates and Paul Allen met at university and decided to drop out to create Microsoft. Leonard Blavatnik who came to the USA from the Soviet Union partnered with Harvard schoolfriend, now billionaire, Victor Vekselberg. Last but not least, ‘Sergey Brin met his partner Larry Page in computer science PhD program at Stanford’. In China, Guo Guangchang co-founded Fosun in 1992 with fellow Fudan University graduates. We may even encounter a cross-cultural background with this Canadian computer company Platform Computing which was co-founded by three Chinese students in 1992: Songnian Zhou, Jingwen Wang and Bing Wu. Songnian Zhou went to Berkeley while Jingwen Wang received a PhD in Computer Science from Northwestern Polytechnic University, China, and was also a post-doctorate fellow at Purdue University’s Department of Computer Science. So we may notice that there are sociocultural and higher educational backgrounds which favour more the development of entrepreneurial networks than others. As far as the Chinese context is concerned, we may for instance mention the importance of the ‘family’ which needs to be understood within the notion of guanxi.6 University networks also play an important part in entrepreneurial development in the USA where it seems to be culturally and socially stronger than in the other studied countries. Conclusions This survey has shown that entrepreneurial orientation was much more favourable to individuals with foreign origins in Canada, the USA and France. The UK and China are the countries where we find the highest number of ‘self-educated’ entrepreneurs. American entrepreneurs are the most numerous to go to university and thus also the most educated entrepreneurs, immediately followed by French and Canadian entrepreneurs. Finally, the countries which are the closest in terms of entrepreneurial education are the UK and Hong Kong (with 35 per cent Chinese entrepreneurs coming from Hong Kong) on the one hand, and the USA and Canada on the other. France’s entrepreneurial training system appears very different from the other countries’, and its duality prevents any meaningful comparative approach if we remain within the scope of this study. More detailed research which might determine the different entrepreneurial skills and qualities fostered by each system appear necessary to complete the analysis. This future research might enable us to distinguish between the different entrepreneurial abilities which are more likely to be found within each particular educational, social and cultural context. However, when we looked at the entrepreneurial orientation of university systems, the results have shown that they could be improved in all the countries covered by this study, but more particularly in France which appears as lagging behind the others in the field of entrepreneurship. Being a graduate from a university may represent an opportunity in the sense that it may give you access to a social network which may ease your business creation both in the USA and in the UK. It is the same in France with business and engineer schools, but not with university. This is true to a much lesser extent in Canada and China. To conclude, even though the USA and the UK share the same linguistic background, this survey has shown that there were many differences in the entrepreneurial orientation


129

of their higher education systems and that each country had its own specificities in this particular field. Now, as far as the perspective for entrepreneurial education is concerned, this survey has shown that the higher education system was probably more efficient in the USA than in the UK, if we agree with the definition of the ‘successful entrepreneur’ which was mentioned previously in this chapter. The question of the duality of the French educational system was also raised by this survey. However, here again more in-depth research, particularly a comparative study of academic syllabus, seems to be needed in order to bring more food for thought as far as this topic is concerned. From a theoretical point of view, we finally may agree with Mark Casson’s idea that there ‘were differences in the endowment of “human capital”’, particularly as far as ‘entrepreneurial abilities’ were concerned. However, it looks as though the entrepreneur is no longer seen as ‘a cultural hero of capitalism’ who ‘is able to rise from humble origins to a position of power and status’, particularly if we consider the American, Canadian and French types of entrepreneurs. We should rather follow Alain Fayolle’s and Louis Jacques Fillion’s theory of the ‘ordinary’ entrepreneur, where entrepreneurship should be considered as a real occupation (Fayolle and Fillion 2006). According to them, we were all born with entrepreneurial abilities, which we need to develop in order to become true entrepreneurs. If we agree on this point, the questions which will then need to be answered are going to be, first, about the nature of these entrepreneurial abilities but also about the way they can be taught and fostered, bearing in mind what Caroline Verzat recently mentioned, that is, ‘entrepreneurial universities are not an oxymoron’ (Verzat, 2009, p. 27). Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Retrieved in September 2008 from http://canentrepreneur.blogspot.com/. Retrieved in August 2008 from http://www.westmount.ci.yrdsb.edu.on.ca/entrepreneurs.html. Retrieved in August 2008 from http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crghpm-gcrpfhp.nsf/en/h_at01212e.html. Retrieved in August 2008 from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com. See Coron (2008a). ‘Guanxi is conventionally translated into English as “relationship”, but the term has many subtle meanings in a society whose social structure is created through strong and weak social relationships’. See, Fei et al. (1947, p. 22). See also Hamilton and Shu (1992, pp. 95–112).

References Atamer, T. and O. Torres (2007), ‘Modèles d’entrepreneuriat et mondialisation’, Les Echos, Supplément L’art d’entreprendre, 31 May, pp. 7–8. Basso, O. (2006), ‘Le Manager Entrepreneur’: entre discours et réalité, diriger en entrepreneur, London: Pearson Education. Basso, O. (2007), ‘Le manager-entrepreneur: une contradiction dans les termes?’, Les Echos, Supplément L’art d’entreprendre, 21 June, pp. 2–3. Casson, M. (1982), The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT, USA: Edward Elgar. Coron, C. (2008a), ‘The economic impact of Chinese students’ circular migration in the UK’, presentation at Joint CAS-CEFC-CERVEPAS Workshop cum The Fourth Chinese Business History Forum on ‘Economic dynamism in the Sinospheres and Anglospheres: identities, integration and competition’ in Hong Kong in September (article to be published). Coron, C. (2008b), ‘The impact of education and training systems on entrepreneurship: a comparative approach between the United Kingdom and France’, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 4 (2), 4–39, available at: http://www.asiaentrepreneurshipjournal.com/AJESIV2008aberdeen.pdf (accessed May 2009).

130


Fayolle, A. (2000), ‘Processus entrepreneurial et recherche en entrepreuneuriat: les apports d’une approche perceptuelle et empirique du domaine’, presentation to CIFPME 2000 Conference, Lille, 25–27 October. Fayolle, A. (2005), ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2 (1), 89–98. Fayolle, A. (2007), ‘L’entrepreneur, ferment de l’économie et de la société’, Les Echos, Supplément L’art d’entreprendre, 31 May, pp. 2–3. Fayolle, A. and L.J. Filion (2006), Devenir Entrepreneur, Paris: Pearson Education France. Fayolle, A. and B. Surlemont (2009), ‘Le mythe de l’entrepreneur rationnel’, L’Expansion Entrepreneuriat, (1), pp. 6–13. Fei, X., G.G. Hamilton and Z. Wang (1947), From the Soil, the Foundations of Chinese Society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gélinier, O. (1976), Stratégie sociale de l’entreprise, Paris: Hommes et Techniques. Hamilton, G. and K.S. Shu (1992), ‘The institutional foundations of Chinese business: the family farm in Taiwan’, Comparative Social Research, 12, 95–112. Hytti, U. and P. Kuopusjärvi (2004), ‘Evaluating and measuring entrepreneurship and enterprise education: methods, tools and practices’, available at: www.entreva.net (accessed 20 July 2008). Moro, D., A. Poli and C. Bernardi (2004), ‘Training the future entrepreneur’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1 (1/2), 192–205. Peterman, N.E. and J. Kennedy (2003), ‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28 (2), 129–44. Schumpeter, J. (1935), Théorie de l’évolution économique, Paris: Dalloz. Verzat, C. (2009), ‘Université entrepreneuriale n’est pas un oxymoron’, L’Expansion Entrepreneuriat, (1), 27–34.

Websites http://www.forbes.com

The USA http://www.blackstone.com/team/pdfs/schwarzman_stephen.pdf http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/040216/16eeupdate.htm http://www.zoetrope.com/index.cgi

China http://www.ckh.com.hk/eng/about/about_chairman.htm http://projetscours.fsa.ulaval.ca/gie-64375/Chinois-riches/quisontils.html http://www.chine-informations.com/actualite/les-hommes-les-plus-riches-de-chine_7877.html http://www.chine-informations.com/guide/chine-panshiyi_1870.html http://www.chineseestates.com/ http://www.fubon.com/eng/group/overview.htm http://chinaentrepreneur.blogspot.com/2008/06/lu-zhiqiang-oceanwide-group-part-3.html http://www.gome.com.hk/eng/ http://www.sohochina.com/en/about/index.asp http://www.chinavitae.com/biography/Liu_Yonghao%7C513 http://www.ldksolar.com/Board%20of%20Directors.html http://www.fosun-international.com/en/company/leadership.asp http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=34902484 http://ir.baidu.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=188488&p=irol-govBio&ID=143589 http://www.fosun.com/en/company/history.asp http://www.agile.com.cn/yw/EGyyjl/EFzlc/Index.html http://www.wanxiang.com/wallstreet.html http://global.midea.com.cn/midea/about/aboutMidea_GroupProfile.jsp

Canada http://www.britannica.com/ http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ http://www.weston.ca/en/abt_corprof.html http://www.biographi.ca http://www.jimpattison.com/

Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment http://www.performancebourse.com/biographie/paul-desmarais,21.html http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-economie/une-legende-du-monde-des-affaires-parle/916/0/255995 http://www.bombardier.com http://www.platform.com http://bilan.usherbrooke.ca http://www.participantmedia.com http://www.sleepcountry.ca http://www.cineplex.com http://www.imax.com http://agora.qc.ca http://www.timhortons.com http://www.lindalundstrom.com/llinda/designer.html http://www.lickshomeburgers.com http://www.slice.ca http://www.chapters.indigo.ca http://www.cbc.ca http://www.citylifemagazine.ca/sucessstory_joe.php http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/ice/cd/PROF97/NORTHAM.pdf http://www.nytimes.com http://www.magna.com/magna/en/about/founder/default.aspx http://www.bwalk.com http://www.businessedge.ca/article.cfm/newsID/3355.cfm http://www.sierrawireless.com http://www.gennum.com http://www.fundinguniverse.com http://www.mosaid.com/corporate/about/profile.php http://www.spinmaster.com/ http://www.opentext.com http://history.siam.org/oralhistories/gonnet.htm

131

132


Appendix Table 9A.1

Comparative survey of US, Chinese and Canadian entrepreneurs’ education and training profiles Name/industry/typology

Education

Nationality

US entrepreneurs 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

University of Nebraska Lincoln, American Warren Buffet Bachelor of Arts/Science Financial investments Columbia University, Master of Berkshire Hathaway Science Trader and developer Harvard University dropout American Bill Gates Software Co-founded Microsoft Founder City College of New York American Sheldon Adelson dropout Gambling/leisure Las Vegas Sands Founder and developer University of Illinois dropout American Lawrence Ellison Software Oracle Trader and developer American University of Maryland, Sergey Brin emigrated from Bachelor of Arts/Science Technology Stanford University, Master Russia Co-founded Google of Science with Larry Page Founder American University of Michigan, Larry Page Bachelor of Arts/Science Technology Stanford University, Master of Co-founded Google Science with Sergey Brin Founder Fred C. Koch MIT Graduated American Oil/gas Invented method of refining gasoline from heavy oil Founded Koch Industries in 1943 Founder American Massachusetts Institute of Charles Koch Technology, Bachelor of Oil/gas Arts/Science Son of Fred C. Koch Massachusetts Institute of Heir and developer Technology, Master of Science American Massachusetts Institute of David Koch Technology, Bachelor of Manufacturing Arts/Science Son of Fred C. Koch Massachusetts Institute of Heir and developer Technology, Master of Science

Entrepreneurs’ education and training environment Table 9A.1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

133

(continued) Name/industry/typology

Education

Nationality

Michael Dell Technology Founded Dell Founder Paul Allen Software Co-founded Microsoft Founder Kirk Kerkorian Investments Trader

University of Texas Austin dropout

American

Washington State University dropout

American

High School Diploma, dropped out of school in eighth grade

American Son of an Armenian immigrant American

Steven Ballmer Software Trader Carl Icahn Investments Trader Jack Taylor Service Founded Rent-A-Car Founder Donald Bren Real estate Trader and developer Michael Bloomberg Media Founded Bloomberg in 1987 Founder George Kaiser Oil/gas Heir and developer Philip Knight Apparel Founded Nike in 1964 Founder Edward Johnson III Finance Fidelity Heir and developer Charles Ergen Media/entertainment Founded EchoStar Founder

Harvard University, Bachelor of Arts Stanford University, MBA Princeton University, Bachelor American of Arts/Science (Philosophy) New York University dropout Washington University dropout American

University of Washington, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

Johns Hopkins University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, MBA

American

Harvard University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, MBA

American Family fled Nazi Germany in 1938 American

University of Oregon, Bachelor of Arts/Science Stanford University, Master of Business Administration Harvard University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

University of Tennessee Knoxville, Bachelor of Arts/ Science Wake Forest University, MBA

American

American

134


Table 9A.1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31


Education

Nationality

John Kluge Media/entertainment Metromedia Trader Ronald Perelman Investments Leveraged buyouts Trader George Soros Finance Hedge funds Trader

Columbia University Bachelor of Arts/Science

American German immigrant

University of Pennsylvania, Bachelor of Arts/Science University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, MBA London School of Economics, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

James Goodnight Technology Co-founded SAS Institute in 1976 Founder Rupert Murdoch Media/entertainment News Corp Trader Jeffrey Bezos Technology Founded Amazon Founder Leonard Blavatnik Oil/gas Founded Access Industries in 1986 Founder Dan Duncan Oil/gas Founded Enterprise Products Partners in 1968 Founder Pierre Omidyar Technology eBay (1995) Founder Philip Anschutz Investments Heir and trader

North Carolina State University, Bachelor of Arts/ Science North Carolina State University, Doctorate Oxford University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Oxford University, Master of Arts Princeton University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American Born in Budapest, family survived Nazi occupation of Hungary American

American Australian-born

American

Moscow State University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, MBA

American Emigrated from Russia in 1978

Massey Business College

American

Tufts University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American French-born

University of Kansas, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American



32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

135

Education

University of Wisconsin John Menard Jr Madison, Bachelor of Arts/ Retailing Science Founded hardware store chain Menard’s in 1972 Founder Harold Simmons University of Texas Austin, Investments Bachelor of Arts/Science Trader University of Texas Austin, Master of Science University of Pennsylvania Steven Cohen Wharton School, Bachelor of Investments Arts/Science Hedge funds Founded hedge fund SAC Capital in 1992 Founder Harvard University, Bachelor Summer Redstone of Arts/Science Media/entertainment Harvard University, Doctor of Viacom Jurisprudence Heir and developer Michigan State University, Eli Broad Bachelor of Arts/Science Real estate Michigan State University, Co-founded Kaufman & Broad Bachelor of Arts/Science Founder Yale University, Bachelor of Stephen Schwarzman Arts/Science Finance Co-founded Blackstone Group Management in 1985 Founder University of Texas Austin David Geffen dropout Media/entertainment Co-founded DreamWorks in 1995 Founder Samuel Zell University of Michigan, Real estate Bachelor of Arts/Science Trader University of Michigan, Doctor of Jurisprudence

Charles Schwab Finance Founded Charles Schwab discount brokerage firm in 1971 Founder

Stanford University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Stanford University, MBA

Nationality American

American

American

American

American Son of Lithuanian immigrants American

American

American Parents fled Poland for America weeks before Nazi invasion American

136


Table 9A.1

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50


Education

Nationality

Henry Kravis Finance Co-founded leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts in 1976 Founder George Roberts Finance Leveraged buyouts Co-founded leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts in 1976 Founder James Simons Investments Hedge funds Founded Renaissance Technologies in 1982 Founder Steven Jobs Technology Co-founded Apple in 1976 Robert Holding Oil/gas Trader and developer Patrick McGovern Media/entertainment Founded International Data Group in 1964 Founder David Murdock Investments Trader William Cook Healthcare Founded Cook Group in 1963 Founder Charles Johnson Finance Franklin Resources Heir and developer Paul Milstein Real estate Heir and developer

Claremont McKenna College, Bachelor of Arts/Science Columbia University, MBA

American

Claremont McKenna College, Bachelor of Arts/Science University of California, Hastings, Doctor of Jurisprudence

American

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bachelor of Arts/Science University of California Berkeley, Doctorate

American

Reed College dropout

American

University of Utah, Bachelor of American Arts/Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

High school dropout

American

Northwestern University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

Yale University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

New York University dropout

American


51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

137


Education

Nationality

Stephen Ross Real estate Founded Related Companies in 1972 Founder Harold Hamm Oil/gas Founded Harold Hamm Tank Truck Service in 1966 Founder John Sall Technology Co-founded SAS Institute in 1976 Founder Henry Ross Perot Investments Founded Electronic Data Systems in 1962 Founder Ralph Lauren Fashion Founded Polo in 1967 Founder Ty Warner Manufacturing (toys) Founded Ty Inc. in 1986 Founder Leon Black Finance Leveraged buyouts Founded Apollo Management in 1990 Founder Ray Dalio Investments Hedge funds Founded Bridgewater Associates in 1975 Founder George Lucas Media/entertainment Co-founded American Zoetrope in 1969 Founder

American University of Michigan, Bachelor of Arts/Science Wayne State University, Doctor of Jurisprudence Phillips College, Bachelor of Arts/Science Northwestern Oklahoma State University, Master of Arts

American

Beloit College, Bachelor of Arts/Science Northern Illinois University, MBA

American

US Naval Academy, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

High School Diploma

American Son of Russian immigrants

Kalamazoo College, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

Dartmouth College, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

Long Island University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, MBA

American

University of Southern California, Bachelor of Arts/ Science

American

138


Table 9A.1

60

61

62

63

64


Education

Nationality

Stephen Wynn Gambling Leisure Trader John Simplot Food Founded J R Simplot Company in 1945 Founder Richard DeVos Service Co-founded Amway now Alticor in 1959 Founder Gordon Moore Technology Co-founded Intel in 1968 Founder

University of Pennsylvania, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

High school dropout

American

Calvin College

American

University of California Berkeley, Bachelor of Arts/ Science California Institute of Technology, Doctorate University of California at Los Angeles, Bachelor of Arts/Science

American

Steven Udvar-Hazy Service Co-founded International Lease Finance in 1973 Founder

American Budapest-born

Chinese entrepreneurs

1

2

3

Name/industry/typology

Education

Nationality

Li Ka-Shing Diversified Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd Founded Cheung Kong Industries in 1950 Founder Walter Kwok Real Estate Founded Sun Hung Kai Properties Founder Lee Shau Kee Real Estate Founded Henderson Land Development Founder

High school dropout

Hong Kong

London University Master of Sciences and engineer degree from Hong Kong University

Hong Kong

NA

Hong Kong


4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13


Education

Nationality

Stanley Ho Gambling/leisure Sociedade de Jogo de Macau Founder Cheng Yu-Tung Real estate Founded New World Development Group in 1970 Founder Yeung Kwok Keung Real estate Founded Country Garden in 1995 Founder Terry Gou Technology Founded Hon Hai in Taiwan in 1974 Founder Y.C. Wang Chemicals Founded Formosa Plastics in 1954 Founder Zhang Jindong Manufacturing Founded Sunning Appliance in 1990 Founder Peter Woo Real estate Heir and developer

University of Hong Kong dropout studied English, Japanese and Portuguese languages Started as a jeweller

Hong Kong

Farmer and worker

China

NA

Taiwan

School education

Taiwan

Nanjing Normal University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

China

University of Cincinnati (Physics and Math) and Columbia University (MBA) Bachelor Degree of Science Joseph Lau from the University of Real estate Windsor, Canada Founded Chinese Estate Group Ltd in 1978 Founder Tsai Wan-Tsai National Taiwan University Finance Banking Founded Fubon Group in 1961 Founder Fudan University Master of Lu Zhiqiang Science Construction Founded Oceanwide Construction Group Co Ltd Founder

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Taiwan

China

139

140


Table 9A.1


Education

Nationality

14

Wong Kwong Yu Retailing Electronic Appliances Founded Gome Appliances in 1987 Founder

Guangdong

15

Chen Din Hwa Textile Real estate Founded Nan Fung Group in 1954 Heir and developer Huang Wei Real estate Trader Michael Ying Apparel Esprit Trader Zhang Li Real estate Co-founded R&F Properties in 1994 Founder Liang Wengen Manufacturing machinery Co-founded Sany Heavy Industry Ltd in 1989 Founder Zhang Xin Real estate Co-founded Soho China in 1995 Founder Li Sze Lim Real estate Co-founded R&F Properties Founder Shi Zhengrong Solar Energy Founded Suntech Power to make photovoltaic cells for

‘Born into a poor farming family in Guangdong, Mr. Wong entered the world of electronics retail with his brother in 1986, buying $500 of watches and radiograms to sell in Inner Mongolia’ (http://www. asiasocietysocal.org/index. php?id=170) NA

NA

China

NA

Hong Kong

NA

China Guangzhou

Central South University, Bachelor of Arts/Science

China Changsha

University of Sussex, Bachelor of Arts/Science Cambridge University, Master of Arts

China Beijing

University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Jilin University, Bachelor of Arts/Science University of New South Wales, Australia Doctorate

Australian citizen born and living in China Wuxi

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Hong Kong



23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

use in solar panels in China in 2001 Founder Shi Yuzhu Online gambling Founded Zhuhai Giant HiTech Group in 1991 Founder William Fung Distribution Apparel Li & Fung Heir and developer Liu Yonghao Agriculture Co-founded Hope Group in 1982 Founder Cho Tak Wong Manufacturing Trader Xiaofeng Peng Solar energy Founded LDK in 2005 Founder Tang Yiu Retailing Shoes Co-founder of Belle International in 1991 Founder Guo Guang-chang Co-founded Fosun in 1992 Founder Cheung Yan/Zhang Yin Co-founded paper manufacturer Nine Dragons in 1995 Founder Chu Mang Yee Founded Hopson Development in 1992 Founder Chen Fashu Mining Founded Zijin Mining Founder

Education

Nationality

Zhejiang University, Bachelor of Science (Math)

China Shanghai

Princeton University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, MBA

Hong Kong

Studied in the faculty of mathematics of Chengdu Teachers’ School

China Chengdu

NA

Hong Kong

Jiangxi Foreign Trade School, Diploma Beijing University, MBA

China Xinyu

NA

Hong Kong

BA in Philosophy and MBA, Fudan University

China Shanghai

NA

Hong Kong

Former government bureaucrat

China Guangzhou

NA

China Fuzhou

141

142


Table 9A.1

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42


Education

Nationality

Kong Jian Min Co-founded KWG Property Holdings Founder Liu Yongxing Agriculture (animal food) Co-founded with his three brothers New Hope Group Founder Li Robin Yanhong Technology Founded Baidu.com China’s top Internet search engine Founder

Computer science major

China Guangzhou

NA

Chengdu

Master of Science Degree in Computer Science from the State University of New York at Buffalo and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Information Management from Peking University NA

Beijing

NA

Shenzhen

NA

Hong Kong

NA

Hong Kong

NA

Chengdu

NA

Nanjing

NA

Hong Kong

Zhang Cheng Fei Co-founded paper manufacturer Nine Dragons Founder Lin Li Insurance Ping An Insurance Trader Chen Zhuolin Real estate Co-founded Agile Property Holdings in 1985 Founder Cheng Chung Kiu CC Land No reliable information available Liu Canglong Chemical products Sichuan Hongda Group No reliable information available Zhang Guiping Suning Universal No reliable information available Chu Lam Yiu Huabao

Dongguan



43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

No reliable information available Miao Liansheng Solar energy Founded Yingli Green Energy in 1998 Founder

Liang Xinjun Pharmaceuticals Founded Fosun International in 1992 Founder Xian Yang Coal Founded Hidili in 2000 Founder Lu Guanqiu Auto parts Founded Wanxiang Group in the 1960s He Xiangjian Founded Guangdong Midea Group in 1968 Founder Gao Dekang Apparel Founded Apparel Bosideng in 1975 Founder Li Sam Yim Founded China Infrastructure Machinery Company in 1993 Founder Pan Shi Yi Real estate Co-founded Soho China with his wife Zhang Xin in 1995 Founder Larry Rong Zhijian Technology Software Co-founded Elcap Electronics Plant in 1978

Education

Nationality

Studied business management in Beijing Economics Institute and received his Master’s degree in business administration from Beijing University in China. Graduated from Fudan University

Baoding

Graduated from the People’s Police School of Sichuan and former customs officer

Panzhihua

Lu started out with a small bicycle-repair shop

Hangzhou

NA

Foshan

NA

Shanghai

NA

Shanghai

Got an engineer degree from Lanzhou Engineer school and then won a scholarship to specialize in a vocational programme at university Graduated from Tianjin University

Beijing

Shanghai

Hong Kong

143

144


Table 9A.1


52

Education

Founded Automation Design Co. Ltd in California in 1982 Founder Graduated from China William Ding University of electronics and Technology Founded NetEase in 1997 at 26 technology Founder

Nationality

China

Canadian entrepreneurs

1

2

3

4

5

6

Name/industry/typology

Education

Nationality

Kenneth Roy Thomson Media/entertainment Became head of Thompson Corp. in 1976 Heir and developer George Weston Food processing and distribution Founded George Weston Ltd 1882 Founder Kenneth Colin Irving Lumber and paper industry/ media Founded the Irving Oil Co. in 1924 Founded Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd in 1951 Founder Jim Pattison Diversified Founded the Pattison Group in 1961 Founder Paul Desmarais Finance Founded Power Corporation Founder Mike Lazaridis Technology Founded Blackberry Research Maker in Motion Founder

University of Cambridge, St John’s College, Master’s degree in Law

Ontario

Left high school at 12

Toronto

Attended Dalhousie and Acadia universities for short periods before going to England for service in the Royal Flying Corps during the First World War

New Brunswick Saint John

University of British Columbia

Vancouver

Bachelor of Arts/Science Ottawa University

Montreal

University of Waterloo, Bachelor of Arts/Science

Waterloo Born in Turkey of Greek parents


7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

145


Education

Nationality

Jeffrey Skoll Cinema Founded the independent movie production company Participant Productions in 2004 Founder James Balsillie Technology Co-CEO of Blackberry Research Maker in Motion Trader Bernard Sherman Pharmaceuticals Founded generic drug maker Apotex in 1974 Founder Robert Miller Technology Founded Future Electronics in 1968 Founder Stephen Jarilowsky Finance Asset management Founded Jarislowsky Fraser in 1954 Founder Joseph-Amand Bombardier Aerospace and Defence Bombardier Founded L’Auto-Neige Bombardier Limitée in 1942 Founder Songnian Zhou Technology Co-founded Platform Computing Inc. in 1992 Founder Jingwen Wang Technology Co-founded Platform Computing Inc. in 1992 Founder

University of Toronto, Bachelor of Arts/Science Stanford University, Master of Business Administration

Canadian living in the USA

University of Toronto, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, Master of Business Administration

Waterloo

University of Toronto, Bachelor of Arts/Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Doctorate

Toronto

Rider College, Bachelor of Arts/Science

Montreal

Cornell University, Bachelor of Arts/Science Harvard University, Master of Business Administration

Montreal Born in Berlin

Self-educated

Quebec

PhD thesis ‘Dynamic load sharing in distributed computing systems’ published at UC Berkeley (USA) PhD degree in Computer Science from Northwestern Polytechnic University, China. He was also a post-doctorate fellow at Purdue University’s Department of Computer Science

Markham Ontario Chinese born

Markham Ontario Chinese-born

146


Table 9A.1

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22


Education

Nationality

Samuel Bronfman Distillery Founded the Distillers Corporation Ltd in 1924 Founder Robert Campeau Real estate developer Founded in 1953 Campeau Construction Co. Ltd Founder Garth Howard Drabinsky Film Founded Cineplex Odeon Corp. in 1979 Founder Graeme Ferguson Film Co-founded Imax Corporation in 1967 Founder Gratien Gélinas Theatre Founded La Comédie Canadienne in 1957 and the National School of Theatre in 1960 Founder Tim Horton Coffee stores Founded Tim Hortons Chains in 1964 Founder Ron Joyce Coffee store Co-founded Tim Hortons Chains Founder Izaak Walton Killam Finance In 1919 Killam bought out Aitken and took full control of the company Trader and developer

Self-educated

Montreal

Ended his education in grade eight at the age of 14

Ottawa

Graduated from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Law degree in 1973

Toronto

Graduated from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Arts degree

Toronto

Started a business school but had to give up because of the 1929 economic crisis

Montreal

Hockey player

Hamilton Ontario

Royal Canadian navy

Hamilton Ontario

‘[L]ittle formal education’

Montreal


23

24


Education

Nationality

Robert Lantos Film producer Co-founded Vivafilm in 1972 RSL Entertainment in 1975 and later Alliance Communication Corporation Founder Jacqueline Lemieux-Lopes Arts Founded in 1975 Entre-Six a Chamber Ballet Company Founder

McGill University BA in literature in 1970 and MA in 1972

Montreal Born in Hungary

Royal Academy of Dancing Advanced Teacher’s Certificate (RAD) Also held the Advanced diploma in National Dance awarded by the Imperial Society of Teachers of Dancing (ISTD) Studied fashion design at Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario, followed by an apprenticeship with a top European fashion house Studied at the Ontario Agricultural College and the Yale Forestry School

Montreal

Graduated from the Richard Ivey School of Business in London, Ontario with Honours in Business Administration (HBA) Holds an honours BSc in Electrical Engineering from Queen’s University and an MBA from the University of Western Ontario Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from York University and an MBA from the University of Toronto

Ontario

25

Linda Lundström Apparel Founded Linda Lundström in 1974 Founder

26

Harvey Reginald MacMillan Lumber Founded in 1919 the H.R. MacMillan Export Company Founder Christine Magee Retailing Co-founded Sleep Country Canada in 1994 Founder Steven K. Gunn Retailing Co-founded Sleep Country Canada in 1994 Founder

27

28

29

147

Gordon Lownds Retailing Co-founded Sleep Country Canada in 1994 Founded Red Apple Entertainment in 2000 Founded Listen up! Canada in 2003 Founder

Toronto

Ontario

Ontario

Ontario

148


Table 9A.1

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37


Education

Nationality

Harrison McCain Food Co-founded McCain’s Food Ltd in 1957 Heir and developer Wallace McCain Food Co-founded McCain’s Food Ltd in 1957 Heir and developer Denise Meehan Restaurants Founded Licks in 1980 Founder Joseph Mimran Apparel/lifestyle home products Founded Club Monaco in 1984 and Caban in 1995 and Joseph Mimran and Associates in 2000 Founder Paul Reichmann Building and property development Co-Founded Olympia & York in 1964 Founder Albert Reichmann Building and property development Co-Founded Olympia & York in 1964 Founder Heather Reisman Retailing Co-founded Paradigm Consulting in 1979 Founded Indigo Books & Music Inc. in 1996 Founder Sam Sniderman Retailing Founded Sam the Record Man in 1937 Founder

Graduated from Acadia University

New Brunswick Florenceville

Graduated from Acadia University

New Brunswick Florenceville

High School Degree

Toronto

Got a Bachelor of Arts from York University and a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Windsor

Toronto

Went to Talmudic colleges in England

Toronto Born in Austria

NA

Toronto

Graduated from McGill University

Toronto

High school dropout at 16

Toronto


38

39

40

41

42

149


Education

Nationality

Franck Stronach Automobile Founded Multimatic Investments Ltd in 1957 Founder Sam Kolias Real estate Co-founded Boardwalk Rental Communities in 1984 Founder Van Kolias Real estate Co-founded Boardwalk Rental Communities in 1984 Founder Gregory D. Aasen Technology Founder of PMC Sierra Founder Charles Levine Communication equipment Founded Sierra Wireless in 1993 Founder

Was a tool and die apprentice who left warravaged Austria in 1954 with a oneway boat ticket and $40 in his pocket University of Calgary (engineering degree)

Aurora Ontario Born in Austria

NA

Greek origins

Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of British Columbia in 1979 Graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Trinity College with a major in economics. He received his master’s in business administration from Northwestern’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management, graduating at the top of his class Bachelor of Arts in Economics from McMaster University and earned his Chartered Accountant designation in Ontario Obtained a BSc in engineering from Imperial College London before moving to Canada in 1964 Master’s (1968) and PhD (1973) at Carleton University, Ottawa Apprenticeship at British Telecom’s research laboratory at Martlesham Heath (UK)

Burnaby BC

43

H. Patrick Thode Technology Founded Gennum Corporation in 1973 Founder

44

Michael Cowpland Technology Co-founded Mitel Corporation in 1971 Founder

45

Terence Matthews Technology Co-founded Mitel Corporation in 1971 Founder

Greek origins

Richmond Originally from Columbus, Ohio

Burlington Ontario

Kanata Ontario British born

Ontario British born

150


Table 9A.1

46

47

48

49

50

51


Education

Nationality

Richard L Foss Technology Co-founded Mosaid Technologies in 1975 Founder Ronnen Harary Toys Co-founded Spin Master Ltd in 1994 Founder Anton Rabie Toys Co-founded Spin Master Ltd in 1994 Founder Ben Varadi Toys Co-founded Spin Master Ltd in 1994 Founder Tim Bray Technology Co-founded Open Text Corp. in 1991 Founder

Graduated with a BSc degree in chemistry and an MBA degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (USA) Graduated in 1994 with a BA in Political Science from the University of Western Ontario

Ottawa Ontario

Graduated in 1994 with an Honours BA from the Richard Ivey School of Business of the University of Western Ontario Graduated in 1994 from the Richard Ivey School of Business of the University of Western Ontario

Toronto Ontario Born in South Africa

Graduated in 1981 with a Bachelor of Science (double major in Mathematics and Computer Science) from the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario Graduated from the University of Waterloo, earning an MSc and a PhD in computer science

Waterloo Ontario Grew up in Beirut, Lebanon

Gaston H Gonnet Technology Co-founded Open Text Corp. in 1991 Founder

Toronto Ontario

Toronto Ontario

Waterloo Ontario From Uruguayan origins and teaching in Zurich

PART III HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM MINORITIES?

10 Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender Teresa Nelson and Susan Duffy

Talking about a female entrepreneur can only make sense if there is a non-female entrepreneur, which she is not, and which she is constructed as different from. (Ahl, 2002, p. 83)

Introduction The domain of entrepreneurship education is now faced with ever more interesting choices about what to be, who to serve and from what principles to profess. Opportunities and challenges in teaching and training related to globalization, technology, political organization and shifting demographics and social views have created entirely new understandings of what is important and where attention should be directed. As just one example, we note the escalation of focus on the intersection of policy and entrepreneurship, illustrated by burgeoning interest in social and developmental entrepreneurship; the institutional promotion of entrepreneurship as a social stability tool for immigrants; and the growing drive for innovation entrepreneurship to protect and promote national economic competitiveness. It is easy to continue to build such a list: entrepreneurship is exciting and valued, and most agree that while academics and others can not help every person to be an entrepreneur, we can help those who are interested with tools, skill acquisition and ideas. In the classrooms of business schools worldwide, faculty work with students as they become entrepreneurs (now or later) using sophisticated technology products and practice-based curricula, with an emphasis often on the formation of high growth, highimpact ventures, in addition to small and medium-sized enterprises. Faculty in their roles as scholars and teachers – before each teaching semester and with each research project – confront the task of deciding what topics deserve attention; what contribution they can make in teaching and scholarship; and from what point of view to work. Faculty decisions about teaching priorities are made actively or passively and are heavily influenced by the institutional process of adopting textbooks written for the classroom. When we adopt a book, we adopt a point of view, a list of topics. This can be augmented surely, but the book is a base component of student attention. Textbook authors, too, make choices based on their perceptions of the field, and they rely on their own research experience, and that of others. As input to the textbook, scholarly research is designed and executed to explore and expound on a conceptual perspective. Linked to pedagogical principles, research forms the core of the textbook that ideally reflects state of the art knowledge from the author’s point of view. In addition to new areas of growth, reflection on our field also encourages assessment: appraisal of historical activity as food for thought on moving forward. It is to this task, in conjunction with an innovation outlook as noted above, that we direct our attention in this chapter. Our focus is the social construction of sex and gender and its relevance to

153

154


entrepreneurship education. As scholars and teachers we have examined the discussion and coverage of this theme over the last decade and we believe it is time for review. We intend to explain why a fresh look at what we are teaching women – and men – in regard to sex and gender is called for, and why it matters. We will share a research agenda that we hope will produce new understanding on the topic. We believe the field has enough data and ideas to shift, boost, and redesign tired and inadequate approaches – or at minimum, engender a conversation that makes our pedagogical decisions about women, sex, gender and entrepreneurship education more intentional and thoughtful. A note of caution: what we consider certainly concerns entrepreneurship of choice, rather than subsistence, and we are decreasingly confident of our comments as they move outside of a North American/European perspective. The difference between women and men: the relevance of a gendered perspective If what we teach is based on what we know, we must begin with the state of the art in research on women and entrepreneurship. Conclusions now being drawn on more than a 20-year history of research show that overall: 1. 2.

Women entrepreneurs are very much like men entrepreneurs: within-sex differences are more meaningful than between-sex differences (for a review see Ahl, 2002) In terms of new and early stage high growth ventures, there are some documented facts that correlate the sex of the lead person (male or female) with certain variables of interest as regards business launch, ownership and growth. Such facts include, for example: more men that women own businesses; women and men-owned ventures are distributed unevenly as a percentage of businesses across industry sectors, with women-owned businesses concentrated in the services sector; and women-led ventures receive less venture capital funding than men-led ventures.

Regardless of this emerging dialetic on the actual state of sameness and difference in entrepreneurship engagement by sex, there is still a pervasive and unsubstantiated story that continues to influence entrepreneurship research and education succinctly titled by Du Rietz and Henrekson (2000) as: ‘The Female Underperformance Hypothesis’. As Ahl (2002, p. 603) recounts the storylines: women have less motivation for entrepreneurship and/or for growth of their businesses, less desire to start a business, less self-confidence, less preparatory education and more risk aversion; they use less optimal feminine management practices, behave irrationally by turning to unqualified family members for help, and they do not network optimally. We, and others, claim that this overall picture of women entrepreneurs and students of entrepreneurship is not based in a science of truth, but in perspective, social construction and research process. In brief, one cause of this misinformation is less than optimal research design and misinterpretation of research findings individually and collectively, as regards impact on practice. For example, findings with little in the way of results exaggerate small differences detected; statistically significant results on differences of mean are overblown as regards their practical impact, and/or tests of a discreet sample (for example, undergraduate entrepreneurship students or women small business owners) are extrapolated without merit to the global population of women launching new ventures. These issues

Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender

155

concern good science and we must continue to work to refine and improve our collective research process. The second issue is epistemological: what distinguishes true knowledge from false knowledge? We argue that rationalism roots our field in a foundation that postures the masculine man entrepreneur as an ideal: decisive, ambitious, courageous, risk-embracing. Once such a foundational view is in place, comparisons to the feminine or woman, and in fact to many men, are by definition less than the ideal. Considering this, we realize that the posture for education not only concerns successful entrepreneurship, and whatever differences exist between men and women entrepreneurs and their ventures, but also the perception of differences and the values that direct the investigation and evaluate outcomes determined. We turn again to the facts that distinguish women-led businesses from men-led businesses in meaningful ways. How do we explicate them? Feminist analysis offers a liberal and social construction framework to examine found differences that still allows for men and women to be considered mostly the same. In the first case, women and men are equal but barriers prevent women from full expression. In the second case, what humans do and how we perceive is enacted socially – we create the ‘truth’ through convention and social experience; we act continually though institutional forces to sustain historical views. A social construction viewpoint adds to the explanation about why there is a ‘story’ about women’s entrepreneurship that varies from empirical findings. It also explains difference in the actions of women and men entrepreneurs and facts about their firms. For example, perhaps manufacturing firms are not better firms (a value), in which case the fact that women own fewer of them, but instead own services firms, is not cause for concern (a problem). Perhaps if women’s role were not socially constructed as primary caregiver (parents, home, children), fewer women would have part-time businesses. The point here is that the assumptions we make, and the embedded values we assume, may direct the interpretations of the outcomes we see. This line of reasoning is being actively promoted in other areas of management as well (for example, leadership, negotiation) where men-versus-women comparisons have similarly yielded many studies with contradictory and uninspired results. When we continue to ask how men and women vary in terms of their entrepreneurial behavior we are assuming that gender (masculinity and femininity) is a stable attribute of humans that can be applied in a straightforward manner to men and women; that essential explanations in biology or socialization exist (Ely and Padavic, 2007). Increasingly feminist theory has moved away from looking at gender as individual difference to considering the ways that society’s institutions are gendered. Acker (1990) defines (in the context of organizations) what it means to say that an institution is gendered: ‘Advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity are patterned through and in terms of a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine’ (p. 146). In other words, we posit that gender is not inherent in individuals but is constructed in the way institutions function. More recently, this perspective has been labeled the study of second generation gender issues, the degree to which institutional practices and processes have differential consequences for the group’s women and men, in our case, entrepreneurs (Acker, 1990; Nelson et al. 2009; Sturm, 2001). Second generation gender issues

156


appear neutral and natural on their face, but they result in different experiences for and treatment of women and men (Sturm 2001). Distinct from first generation discrimination involving intentional acts of bias, second generation gender practices seem unbiased in isolation, but they typically reflect masculine values and the life situations of men who have dominated in the public domain of work (Flax, 1990; Fletcher, 1999). Endorsement for new research approaches that shift the field from man versus woman to a focus on the institutional environment as a force of difference and the perception of difference has been heard from Greene et al. (2003), Carter and Brush (2004), Bird and Brush (2002), Hill et al. (2006) and Marlow and Patton (2005), among others. Kalleberg and Leicht (1991), state: ‘There is a need to address the gender blindness, gender bias, androcentrism and gender polarization which has dominated this type of research’ (p. 160). Entrepreneurship education for women (and men) If teaching is based on good research, synthesis and a point of view, then as regards women and entrepreneurship education, we suggest consideration of the following: 1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

Women and men should be taught the same knowledge and skills of entrepreneurship. Women and men should be informed about the gendered landscape and its norms of masculinity and femininity, and associated implications.1 Careful analysis should be conducted to determine how gendered institutions influence women in regard to their preparation for and activities of entrepreneurship, including business schools and other learning environments. The findings of research on differences between the decisions, behavior and outcomes of men and women entrepreneurs and their businesses should be thoughtfully considered and presented in a fashion cognizant of the tendency to impose stereotypical views. New research to expose women’s experience of the gendered landscape should be undertaken. Women, in particular, should be informed and helped to strategize how to negotiate the gendered landscape they will encounter as entrepreneurs, given their institutionalized ‘one-down’ position in the world of work.

For researchers interested in entrepreneurship pedagogy, this requires turning an open mind and thoughtful eye to the way issues of women’s entrepreneurship are presented, discussed and engaged. It also calls forth a new research agenda on women’s experience of entrepreneurship. It is to these topics that the remainder of this discussion is directed. Understanding the gendered landscape of research and pedagogy in entrepreneurship Sociologist Joan Acker (1990) tells us that in modern Western society, men have charge of production and women of reproduction. With this simple phrase Acker calls out the social construction of men and women’s expected place in life. When women ‘cross over’ into the world of production, they are different than the norm, and to a greater or lesser degree, unexpected. Understanding the social construction of sex and gender is a power-


157

ful tool for our age as it allows us to place both men and women as actors in the creation of the taken-for-granted. In terms of entrepreneurship, this socially formed world favors the masculine ideal over the feminine, and while the impact is powerful, most people are not aware of its creation, refreshment, and/or use. Social construction is not a deterministic process; it is perpetuated by institutions and institutional forces, though what is socially constructed can change (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). That means by calling out current patterns and norms and instilling new ones, we can change the landscape and its assumptions over time. In the sections that follow we share our investigation of two primary sources of entrepreneurship education – textbooks and research articles – as major vehicles of institutional transmission of perceptions of men and women entrepreneurs vis-à-vis students and faculty. We also outline a research program to better and more fully identify how the gendered landscape impacts women as they enact their entrepreneurial careers. Finally, we offer recommendations for moving forward. Entrepreneurship textbook review To explore how the topic of women’s entrepreneurship education is presented to students and faculty we reviewed 16 popular general textbooks on entrepreneurship2 written in English and used extensively at colleges and universities in the USA and elsewhere. Published between 1999 and 2008, the books contain around 550 pages of text each and the set delivers a mean 3.3 pages on the topic of women and entrepreneurship (range one to seven pages). Under the logic that men and women should be taught the same entrepreneurship core of materials, it is a positive finding that there are no leading textbooks for women entrepreneurs or segmented sections of textbooks that discuss women’s ventures or approaches as different, either ideally or in practice. On the other hand, the material that is included calls out issues of women, and therefore men, and so is worth considering carefully. Our content analysis identified themes across textbooks related to women, sex and gender. Eleven of the 16 textbooks presented a specific section dedicated to the topic of women and entrepreneurship; seven placed this information with or adjacent to material on minority and ethnic entrepreneurship and six stated that women are discriminated against as entrepreneurs. This approach is sympathetic to the liberal feminist view that women (and others) face barriers in achieving the standard of men in entrepreneurship; this justifies the linking of women and minorities in comparison to men, who presumably then are Caucasian. Reasons why women are different were called out across multiple texts: women-owned businesses are smaller and more service oriented (six textbooks); women become entrepreneurs due to dissatisfaction with corporate life (four); women have difficulty finding funding for their businesses (four). Advice offered to women entrepreneurs comprises a range of one to three sentences of text in books with dedicated sections. Most often the advice is around how to obtain financing (eight) including mention of Small Business Administration programs. Only two out of the 11 books offer specific guidance on topics other than receiving financing. Katz and Green (2007) mention the need to build diverse networks. Gundry and Kickul (2007, p. 347) cite Nelson who makes a case for ‘education programs (examining) how they educate women in terms of the impact of gender on business success’.

158


Our intent in this content analysis was to imagine the role of the woman undergraduate or graduate student who had enrolled in an entrepreneurship college course and then opens her book to find direction and information. Taking a social constructionist approach, we note that what is important in the text is what is said, and what is not said; what is said generally, what is surmised and what is held out for example are all important. What is striking about the textbooks with dedicated sections on women and entrepreneurship is that the posture of the writing is consistently one of men versus women. Moreover, at a basic level of analysis, no textbook discussing women entrepreneurship specifically presented how the findings on men versus women reflect differences of the mean and that this should be interpreted to say that some average difference exists but that men and women may approach entrepreneurship and succeed similarly most of the time. We turn to Hisrich et al. (2008), a textbook used at the graduate and undergraduate level in the USA, to demonstrate these points. We chose the Hisrich et al. (2008) because it is overall a very good book and very popular in the classroom, therefore it carries significant impact. In the textbook, the section entitled, ‘Male Versus Female Entrepreneurs’ begins on page 64 and is followed by a section on ‘Minority Entrepreneurship’, page 67. The bulk of the content in the section discusses comparative characteristics of men versus women entrepreneurs including a one page table, ‘Comparison of Male and Female Entrepreneurs’ (p. 65). The characteristics considered across the two headings ‘Male Entrepreneurs’ (left side) and ‘Female Entrepreneurs’ (right side) include the following: motivation, departure point, sources of funds, occupational background, personality characteristics, background, support groups and type of business started. A second nearfull page is taken up with the reprint of an article from Entrepreneur Magazine (p. 66) with the first line, ‘Is becoming a certified Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) really beneficial?’ The conclusion of the article asks for advice with the following questions that include a suggestion that WBE may be an unfair advantage for women: Do you think that I should get certified as a ‘woman owned’ business? Is it worth filling out all the paperwork? Is it fair that I increase my access to possible government contracts by being certified as a ‘woman owned’ business? Or should I think about it more as a competitive advantage because every entrepreneur tries to best their competitive advantage into profits?

The entrepreneurship literature cited as reference for the three pages is footnoted to the following sentence, ‘Factors in the start-up process of a business for male and female entrepreneurs are also different, especially in such areas as support systems, sources of funds, and problems’ (Hisrich et al., 2008, p. 64).The sole data reference was published 23 years ago: R. Hisrich and C. Brush, The Women Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing and Managing a Successful New Venture, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986. The one example of a female entrepreneur given in the section describes Kimberly Porrazzo, ‘who planned to return to her previous job after her pregnancy. Frustrated in her search for a good nanny, she decided to create The Nanny Kit and also start the Southern California Nanny Center, a source of advice that houses an informational database maintained and updated by Porrazzo (Hisrich et al., 2008, p. 64)’. We put forth that this content overall delivers a disservice to men and women readers on the subject of the influence of sex and gender in entrepreneurship. It distinguishes women from men entrepreneurs in a poor comparative light; fails to integrate current


159

research and up-to-date findings on sex, gender and entrepreneurship; is not helpful in recommending to women how sex and gender are relevant to their business development and what can be done in response; relies on old research (traits theory) that has been largely abandoned as a useful line of comparison on sex and gender; promotes stereotypes of women in terms of business area of interest; and focuses on what may not work, without substantial evidence of such. We respectfully suggest that these pages, read by a woman and a man, imply that women’s entrepreneurship is different in kind, as are women entrepreneurs. We believe this content would lead women and men students to absorb the ‘bad news’ that women entrepreneurs are not as well equipped and not as likely to succeed as men. The overall tone is that woman are not fully in the game, as described they ‘usually rely solely on personal assets or savings’ (Hisrich et al. 2008, p. 64) for start-up financing and occupationally, ‘usually have administrative experience that is limited to the middle-management level, often in service-related areas’ (p. 64) in contrast to men who ‘often list investors bank loans, or personal loans in addition to personal funds as sources of start-up capital’ (p. 64) and ‘more often have experience in manufacturing, finance, or technical areas’ (p. 64). Other textbooks leave similar effects. This review leads us to recognize an opportunity for conversation within the entrepreneurship academy on the state of women’s entrepreneurship research and the findings that are relevant and useful to men and women students of entrepreneurship. We suggest that we need to look carefully at what we know and that we need to represent the facts clearly and without bias. It is possible, as can easily happen in sub-fields, that findings and meta-analyses are not being distributed out of the smaller discussion and into the primary conversation of the discipline. Particularly in terms of entrepreneurship education, we find this a necessary condition, for many reasons but especially for the undergraduate and graduate women who rely on our expertise and mentorship. Recommendations for teaching and learning in current research work on women and entrepreneurship The relationship of textbook and current research led us to investigate the most recent, well regarded publications on women and entrepreneurship. Our goal was to see what links to pedagogy could be made from original work. We established a database of articles published from 2002 to 2008 identified from a set of nine journals that are major journals of entrepreneurship and/or devote significant attention to entrepreneurship and women. This inquiry builds on prior reviews of the literature including Ahl (2002) and Gatewood et al. (2003). The journals included in the study were Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, International Small Business Journal, Small Business Economics as well as two journals that have been noted for their coverage of women and entrepreneurship: the Journal of Business Ethics and the Business Ethics Quarterly. We searched on the words [woman, women, female, gender] as author supplied keywords or as words in the article abstract. From this search we identified 104 articles in total. For the purposes of our investigation linked to textbook review, we excluded papers focused on entrepreneurship in countries other than North America, review articles including introductions to special issues that did not provide original

160


Table 10.1

Data source of recent articles on women and entrepreneurship

Journal Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice Journal of Business Venturing Journal of Small Business Management Entrepreneurship and Regional Development Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship International Small Business Journal Small Business Economics Journal of Business Ethics Business Ethics Quarterly Total

Original

Final

25 10 14 7 26 5 14 2 1 104

12 8 6 0 13 0 5 1 0 45

empirical or conceptual content, and articles with only tangential focus on women or gender. Our final exploratory study base was 45 articles (Table 10.1). We conducted a content review of each article to determine whether and to what extent the author/s discussed the implications for teaching and learning in the future research, implications, discussion or other concluding sections of the article. Overall, each article was assigned to a category 1, 2 or 3 by a graduate student in entrepreneurship and their categorization was verified by a PhD entrepreneurship faculty member (100 per cent convergence of views). Category 1 represents any mention of a pedagogical application or purpose to the research, no matter how slight. Category 2 includes any article that cogently discussed at least one direct application of the research at hand as regards sharing practice or concept with students. Category 3 includes substantive attention to the application of the research at hand to pedagogy or classroom experience. Results: 22 per cent or N = 10 of the articles made any mention of implications of the research on teaching and learning (78 per cent or N = 35 articles with no mention). Of those with mention, seven articles (15 per cent) fell into category 1 with little value for pedagogy, one article in category 2 with some value, and two articles in category 3 with substantive reflection on application of research to teaching and learning. The reviewed articles are noted at the end of this chapter. Our review shows that scholars in the women and entrepreneurship area are generally not considering implications for teaching and learning in their research publications and if mention is included, it is not of real value to those looking for application in the classroom. We suggest that there is a link between the absence of this detail and textbook material. The recommendation is then that researchers in the area would encourage transmission of up-to-date information on gender and entrepreneurship through informed discourse in their work. Moving forward: a proposal for research from a social construction viewpoint Our exploratory review on the state of knowledge for women’s entrepreneurship suggests a disconnect in knowledge from scholar to teacher to student. We found a lack of up-to date, useful knowledge on the intersection of entrepreneurship education, gender and women being made available in the college classroom. Part of this is due

Entrepreneurship education: women, men, sex and gender Source 1: Academy Literature The intersection of 3 base subjects: Entrepreneurship Sex/gender Adult education

Source 2: The Experience of Women Entrepreneurs Archival First person accounts

Figure 10.1

Consideration: How are sex and gender relevant to women’s entrepreneurial experience (i.e., business start-up and growth)?

161

Prescriptions for the Entrepreneurship Education of Women Undergraduate Graduate Adult lifelong Global/cultural Generational Organizational stage (prelaunch, launch, growth) Organizational style (developmental, lifestyle, growth)

Proposed study model

to a lack of integration of research finding implications for teaching and learning into our major classroom texts. Another part, we believe, is that it is difficult to determine how the socially constructed view of entrepreneurship and gender impacts perception and interpretation; it is hard to look at our social norms; that is, the favored position. As a result, we recommend a new research agenda for women’s entrepreneurship education. The starting point for such a project could be: (1) the state of knowledge carefully examined from the standpoint of bias and institutionalized ideals, and (2) the experience of women as they perceive and negotiate the gendered landscape in entrepreneurship. A proposed design agenda is presented as Figure 10.1. Research of this kind would add the voice of successful practicing women entrepreneurs to the existing body of knowledge in entrepreneurship education program development and delivery to inform the design of university-based entrepreneurship education programming. The research model is founded on two areas of inquiry: 1.

2.

How can the implications of gender in the construction of practice, research and pedagogy be synthesized into a program for nascent entrepreneurs to raise awareness of potential challenges while building competence and confidence for success? What is the impact of this kind of entrepreneurship education program on students? How are students different upon completion of study? Are there changes in behavior, activities, and choices?

An explicit objective of this study would be to create entrepreneurship education programming tools that are differentiated from existing programs on three fronts. First, the content and process of the learning is underpinned by both the academic research in entrepreneurship education and the experiences of practicing entrepreneurs. Second, the program design is holistic and output focused; detailed instructional design will connect learning objectives, education processes, outcomes, and impact on students. Third, the implications of gender is integrated in all elements of the learning experience for both women and men.

162


Concluding comments Because there are socially constructed norms and perceptions of men, women and entrepreneurship there are differences in how men and women enact entrepreneurship and how we study, think about and teach new venture creation and growth. Facts tell us that women and men and their ventures currently differ in some important ways. A careful reading of the interpretations of those facts indicates that a priori principles and values may influence how we interpret, extend and use that data. We posit that those interpretations and the socially constructed posture itself can place women nascent and practicing entrepreneurs in a one-down position relative to the ideal, the masculine, thereby creating the conditions for enactment of the standard. These ideals influence men, and society generally, as well. In the last 35 years the field of research on women and entrepreneurship has emerged. Women’s role in new venture creation and society has shifted in this period as well. Reviewing the evolution of research on women’s entrepreneurship, Minniti et al. (2006) state: Research, however, was slow to investigate areas of difference (between men and women from 1976). Consequently, researchers produced descriptive publications that did little more than clarify the state of female entrepreneurship and identify the key issues to be addressed. Some research generated and tested hypotheses, and – where significant challenges or barriers were identified – contributed prescriptive recommendations. But this focus on similarities, grounded in the assumption that men and women entrepreneurs are not different, and that there is one overarching model of entrepreneurial behavior, also limited our understanding of women and entrepreneurship in general. (p. 182) Research in the 1980s treated gender as an analytical variable, and examined women entrepreneurs and their ventures for similarities and differences with respect to their male counterparts. From this perspective, gender, or sex, was then treated as an analytical result. By the 1990s, on the other hand, emerging theory suggested that context and perspectives were important for conducting research and, as a result, gender was treated as a lens. These gender-based or feminist theories are useful for explaining, testing, and interpreting women’s entrepreneurial behavior. (p. 193)

The movement in approach to studying women and entrepreneurship precedes and enriches our ability to develop robust pedagogical tools that promote women’s success in launching and growing ventures. The field can benefit from understanding similarities and differences in the context of the conditions that create them. In this chapter we have worked to show how socially constructed views of gender and entrepreneurship influence us and our teaching regarding, particularly, women and new venture creation. As a result of exploratory investigation, we recommend a new agenda to develop useful, relevant entrepreneurship education for women. Notes 1. As Marlow astutely notes (2005, p. 720) the social construction of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur does not impact women alone: ‘Gender stereotyping still persists to the detriment of those who reflect feminine characteristics, be they men or women.’ Ahl (2002, p. 51) notes Bem’s scale traits of femininity to include: affectionate, loyal, sympathetic and gentleness. 2. Allen (2006); Baron and Shane (2004); Boyett and Boyett (2000); Bygrave and Zacharakis (2004); Dollinger (2008); Gundry and Kickul (2007); Hisrich et al. (2008); Katz and Green (2007); Knott (2008); Kuratko and Welch (2004); Morris (1998); Salham et al. (1999); Timmons and Spinelli (2007); Vesper (1996); Zimmer et al. (2008); Zimmer et al. (2009).


163

References Acker, J. (1990), ‘Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations’, Gender & Society, 4 (2), 139–58. Ahl, H. (2002), The Making of the Female Entrepreneur, Jonkoping: Jonkoping International Business School. Allen, K.R. (2006), Launching a New Venture: An Entrepreneurial Approach, 3rd edn, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Baron, R.A. and S.A. Shane (2004), Entrepreneurship: A Process Perspective, Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education. Berger, P. and T. Luckmann (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Bird, B. and C. Brush (2002), ‘A gendered perspective on organizational creation’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26 (3), 41–65. Boyett, J.H. and J.T. Boyett (2000), The Guru Guide to Entrepreneurship, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Bygrave, W.D and A. Zacharakis (2004), The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Carter, N. and C. Brush (2004), ‘Gender’, in W.B. Gartner, K.G. Shaver, N.M. Carter and P.D. Reynolds (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: The Process of Business Creation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dollinger, M.J. (2008), Entrepreneurship: Strategic Resources, 4th edn, Lombard, IL: Marsh Publications. Du Rietz, A. and M. Henrekson (2000), ‘Testing the female underperformance hypothesis’, Small Business Economics, (14), 1–10. Ely, R. and I. Padavic (2007), ‘A feminist analysis of micro research on gender in organizations: suggestions for advancing the field’, Academy of Management Review, (32), 1121–80. Flax, J. (1990), Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminisms, and Postmoderism in the Contemporary West, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Fletcher, J. (1999), Disappearing Acts, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gatewood, E., N. Carter, C. Brush, P. Greene and M. Hart (2003), Women Entrepreneurs, their Ventures, and the Venture Capital Industry, Stockholm: ESBRI. Greene, P., M. Hart, E. Gatewood, C. Brush and N. Carter (2003), ‘Women entrepreneurs: moving front and center’, available at: http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/whitepapers/greene2003.pdf (accessed February 2009). Gundry, L. and J. Kickul (2007), Entrepreneurship Strategy: Changing Patterns in New Venture Creation, Growth and Reinvention, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hill, F., C. Leitch and R. Harrison (2006), ‘Desperately Seeking Finance? The demand for finance by womenowned and -led businesses’, Venture Capital, 8 (2), 59–182. Hisrich, R. and C. Brush (1986), The Women Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing and Managing a Successful New Venture, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Hisrich, R.D., M.P. Peters and D.A. Shepherd (2008), Entrepreneurship, 7th edn, New York: McGraw Hill. Kalleberg, A. and K. Leicht (1991), ‘Gender and organizational performance: Determinants of small business survival and success’, Academy of Management Journal, 34 (1), 136–61. Katz, J.A. and R.P. Green (2007), Entrepreneurial Small Business, New York: McGraw Hill. Knott, M.A. (2008), Venture Design, 2nd edn, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Kuratko, D.F. and H.P. Welch (2004), Strategic Entrepreneurship Growth, 2nd edn, Mason, OH: ThomsonSouth-Western. Marlow, S. and D. Patton (2005), ‘All credit to men, entrepreneurship, finance and gender’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29 (6), 699–716. Minniti, M., A. Zachavakis, S. Spinelli, M. Rice and T. Habbershon (2006), Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Growth, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Morris, M.H. (1998), Entrepreneurship Intensity: Sustainable Advantages for Individuals, Organizations, and Societies, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Nelson, T., S. Maxfield and D. Kolb (2009), ‘Women entrepreneurs and venture capital: managing the shadow negotiation’, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), 57–76. Salham, W.A., H.H.Stevenson, M.J. Roberts and A.V. Bhinde (eds) (1999), The Entrepreneurship Venture, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Sturm, S. (2001), ‘Second generation employment discrimination: a structural approach’, Columbia Law Review, (101), 458–568. Timmons, J.A. and S. Spinelli Jr (2007), New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century, 7th edn, New York: McGraw Hill. Vesper, K.H. (1996), New Venture Creation, Seattle, WA: Vector Books. Zimmer, T.W., N.M. Scarborough and D. Wilson (2008), Essentials of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 5th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Zimmer, T.W., N.M. Scarborough and D. Wilson (2009), Effective Small Business Management, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

164


Appendix 10.1: article list – review of pedagogy implications Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice Bird, B., and C. Brush (2002), ‘A gendered perspective on organizational creation’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26 (3), 41–65. De Bruin, A., C. Brush and F. Welter (2007), ‘Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31 (3), 323–39. Marlow, S., and D. Patton (2005), ‘All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29 (6), 717–35. Gatewood, E., K. Shaver, J. Powers and W. Gartner (2002), ‘Entrepreneurial expectancy, task effort, and performance’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27 (2), 187. Godwin, L., C. Stevens and N. Brenner (2006), ‘Forced to play by the rules? Theorizing how mixed-sex founding teams benefit women entrepreneurs in male-dominated contexts’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30 (5), 623–42. Wilson, F., J. Kickul and D. Marlino (2007), ‘Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31 (3), 387–406. De Bruin, A., C. Brush and F. Welter (2006), ‘Introduction to the special issue: towards building cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30 (5), 585–93. Greve, A. and J. Salaff (2003), ‘Social networks and entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 28 (1), 1–22. DeTienne, D. and G. Chandler (2007), ‘The role of gender in opportunity identification’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31 (3), 365–86. Nelson, T. and L. Levesque (2007), ‘The status of women in corporate governance in high-growth, highpotential firms’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31 (2), 209–32. Ahl, H. (2006), ‘Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30 (5), 595–621. Orser, B., A. Riding and K. Manley (2006), ‘Women entrepreneurs and financial capital’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30 (5), 643–65.

Journal of Business Venturing Verheul, I., L. Uhlaner and R. Thurik (2005), ‘Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial selfimage’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (4), 483–518. Chowdhury, S. (2005), ‘Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: is it important?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (6), 727–46. DeMartino, R. and R. Barbato (2003), ‘Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs: exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (6), 815. Becker-Blease, J. and J. Sohl (2007), ‘Do women-owned businesses have equal access to angel capital?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (4), 503–21. Bates, T. (2002), ‘Restricted access to markets characterizes women-owned businesses’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (4), 313. Ahl, H. (2007), ‘Sex business in the toy store: a narrative analysis of a teaching case’, Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (5), 673–93. Carter, N., W. Gartner, K. Shaver and E. Gatewood (2003), ‘The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (1), 13. Eddleston, K. and G. Powell (2008), ‘The role of gender identity in explaining sex differences in business owners’ career satisfier preferences’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23 (2), 244–56.

Journal of Small Business Management Jones, K. and R. Tullous (2002), ‘Behaviors of pre-venture entrepreneurs and perceptions of their financial needs’, Journal of Small Business Management, 40 (3), 233–49. DeMartino, R., Barbato and P. Jacques (2006), ‘Exploring the career/achievement and personal life orientation differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs: the impact of sex and dependents’, Journal of Small Business Management, 44 (3), 350–68. Shelton, L. (2006), ‘Female entrepreneurs, work–family conflict, and venture performance: new insights into the work–family interface’, Journal of Small Business Management, 44 (2), 285–97. Collins-Dodd, C., I. Gordon and C. Smart (2004), ‘Further evidence on the role of gender in financial performance’, Journal of Small Business Management, 42 (4), 395–417.


165

Dolinsky, A. and R. Caputo (2003), ‘Health and female self-employment’, Journal of Small Business Management, 41 (3), 233–41. Morris, M., N. Miyasaki, C. Watters and S. Coombes (2006), ‘The dilemma of growth: understanding venture size choices of women entrepreneurs’, Journal of Small Business Management, 44 (2), 221–44. Coleman, S. (2007), ‘The role of human and financial capital in the profitability and growth of women-owned small firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, 45 (3), 303–19.

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship Perry, S. (2002), ‘A comparison of failed and non-failed small business in the united states: do men and women use different planning and decision making strategies?’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7 (4), 415. Coleman, S. (2004), ‘Access to debt capital for women- and minority-owned small firms: does educational attainment have an impact?’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9 (2), 127–43. Rasheed, H. (2004), ‘Capital access barriers to government procurement performance: moderating effects of ethnicity, gender and education’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9 (2), 109–26. Coleman, S. (2002), ‘Constraints faced by women small business owners: evidence from the data’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7 (2), 151. Swinney, J., R. Runyan and P. Huddleston (2006), ‘Differences in reported firm performance by gender: does industry matter?’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11 (2), 99–115. Shields, J. (2005), ‘Does rural location matter? The significance of a rural setting for small businesses’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10 (1), 49–63. Robb, A. (2002), ‘Entrepreneurial performance by women and minorities: the case of new firms’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7 (4), 383. Menzies, T., M. Diochon and Y. Gasse (2004), ‚Examining venture-related myths concerning women entrepreneurs’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9 (2), 89–107. Mueller, S. and M. Dato-On (2008), ‘Gender-role orientation as a determinant of entrepreneurial self-efficacy’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13 (1), 3–20. Dorado, S. (2006), ‘Social entrepreneurial ventures:: different values so different process of creation, no?’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11 (4), 319–43. Knotts, T., S. Jones and K. Brown (2008), ‘The effect of strategic orientation and gender on survival: a study of potential mass merchandising suppliers’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 13 (1), 99–113. Singh, G. and A. DeNoble (2003), ‘Views on self-employment and personality: an exploratory study’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 8 (3), 265–81. Litz, R. and C. Folker (2002), ‘When he and she sell seashells: exploring the relationship between management team gender-balance and small firm performance’, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7 (4), 341.

Small Business Economics Muse, L., M. Rutherford, S. Oswald and J. Raymond (2005), ‘Commitment to employees: does it help or hinder small business performance?’, Small Business Economics, 24 (2), 97–111. Mukhtar, S. (2002), ‘Differences in male and female management characteristics: a study of owner-manager businesses’, Small Business Economics, 18 (4), 289. Kim, G. (2006), ‘Do equally owned small businesses have equal access to credit?’, Small Business Economics, 27 (4/5), 369–86. Fairlie, R. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship and earnings among young adults from disadvantaged families’, Small Business Economics, 25 (3), 223–36. Reynolds, P., N. Carter, W. Gartner and P. Greene (2004), ‘The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics’, Small Business Economics, 23 (4), 263–84.

Business Ethics Quarterly Dienhart, J. (2003), ‘Who are our hairdressers? A plea for institutions and action’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (3), 391–401.

11 Entrepreneurship education and ethnic minorities: the case of North African entrepreneurs in France Hadj Nekka and Alain Fayolle

Introduction The question of entrepreneurship education represents an interest not only in its own right but may also be used to correct some of the shortcomings of mass education. Indeed, learning has become separated from practical application (Filion, 1996). It leads students to evolve within a predetermined frame of reference which in turn leads to a feeling of anxiety once they find themselves in a system where all is not clearly defined. Regarding the field itself, and despite the instability of the theoretical field of entrepreneurship, attempts have been made to define suitable education methods and contents that correspond to the field’s theoretical and practical needs (Fayolle, 2000; 2007a; Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). However, little research has been conducted on the specificities of particular populations. In this context, focusing on a particular population should enable us to go back over existing research and suggest potential pedagogical innovations in the field of entrepreneurship education. Our objective here is to contribute to the improvement of entrepreneurship education by concentrating on an ethnic minority, French entrepreneurs of North African origin. Our objectives are ambitious given the fact that one can wonder whether entrepreneurship education for ethnic minorities constitutes an impasse or rather intellectual opportunism. Our work is divided into three parts. The first highlights the theoretical benefits of associating entrepreneurial education and support, while the second aims to present a review of the literature in order to better situate the question of entrepreneurship education in the field of entrepreneurship. Finally, in the third part we present the results of the experimentation of various entrepreneurship education approaches and a typology of North African entrepreneurs. 1 Training1 or support2 for North African entrepreneurs? We by no means intend to limit entrepreneurship to new venture creation, or to suggest replacing entrepreneurship training with entrepreneurship support or vice versa. However, we feel that the examination of possible complementarities between education and support initiatives represents both a potentially rich research path in an entrepreneurial society3 and a pertinent approach to better understand the specificities of a particular population, namely North African entrepreneurs in France here. Choosing to focus on entrepreneurship training designed, among others, for a population of North African would-be entrepreneurs led us to examine and discuss the benefits of both experiences in order to define pedagogical content that could be beneficial to all learners. This path appears promising even if the support process does not naturally accommodate the specificities linked to ethnic origins (Levy-Tadjine et al., 2005).4 The study of entrepreneurship training programmes has shown the importance of interacting with local communities and drawing on territorial resources (Béchard, 1999). We consolidate 166

Entrepreneurship education and ethnic minorities

167

the link between entrepreneurship training and support by hypothesizing that potential entrepreneurs who belong to an ethnic minority, more often than others find themselves in situations of adversity. Even though this adversity can be reduced by acquiring some social status, through a degree for example, the issue of the development of entrepreneurship courses in higher education establishments is raised not only in this case but also more generally, as Marchesnay (1999) highlighted. 1.1 Training and support: complementary notions in terms of learning The association of these two notions requires, on the one hand, a precise definition of support and, on the other hand an open view of entrepreneurship teaching. As regards entrepreneurship support, we consider that efficient assistance provided to entrepreneurs goes beyond a logic based only on access to information and a standardized training course. We believe a pertinent support to be a long-term, symbiotic relationship between the supporter and the supported (Audet et al., 2004; Sammut, 2003). However, concerning entrepreneurship training, we should certainly neither ‘fix’ a certain vision of the entrepreneurship course nor defend an exclusive form of its existence, even if this form comes from a prestigious university. We must take into account the rapidly evolving entrepreneurial forms and practices. In order to illustrate the benefits of support for education and vice versa, we refer to two examples. First, the combination of support– education experiences appears useful in the French context. Unlike the USA, France has no entrepreneurial culture in which failure is considered to be a rich learning experience. Given the reticence of entrepreneurs who have previously failed, the experience gained from entrepreneurship support could represent a valuable asset in transforming a situation of failure into veritable learning opportunities and sources of pedagogical innovations (Shepherd, 2004). Since the causes of failure are often difficult to identify due to the accumulation and interaction of various factors, this combination could provide valuable insights into the research carried out in this field5 and help to improve pedagogical efficiency of entrepreneurship. Second, the education-support combination is also well illustrated by Valéau (2005) for example. Thus, we see that entrepreneurship training not only makes the support team and potential entrepreneurs more aware of the risk of interference by the supporter in the entrepreneur’s project,6 but it is also a way to prepare those involved for the complexity of the supporter–entrepreneur relationship. This illustration seems original in that it does not take into account the classical situations whereby education constitutes a source of pedagogical methods for support activities.7 1.2 Entrepreneurship support: a rich source of knowledge for pedagogical efficiency If traditionally entrepreneurship support tends to consider the would-be entrepreneur as a service or help seeker in the start-up stage, it could also represent a rather atypical relationship. For example, the process could be reversed and so constitute a relationship of exchange where both parties, supporter and entrepreneur, benefit from the collaboration (Jaouen et al., 2005). Support should enable the entrepreneur to understand and manage the complexity of the entrepreneurial process, in other words to help translate his or her strategy into day-to-day management activities (Sammut, 2003; Verstraete, 1997). By providing a line of thought for action, the support should enable the entrepreneur to mature the project by facilitating access to information and knowledge. Stimulating an individual’s entrepreneurial capacity implies leading him or her to define his or her

168


vision (Saporta and Verstraete, 2000; Verstraete, 1997). Indeed, the entrepreneur’s strategic approach can be greatly helped by quality support (Hernandez, 1999). By taking into account ethnic origins in entrepreneurship education courses their content can be enriched.8 Thus, the diversity and richness of support experience can constitute useable material to pedagogical ends, all the more so since research concerned with entrepreneurship learning prior to company inception is still at a very early stage of development. Indeed, if entrepreneurs’ ability to learn and to adapt once the company is established has been extensively studied (Cope, 2005), our knowledge and understanding of the interaction between learning and the entrepreneurial process remain among the most neglected areas of entrepreneurship research (Deakins and Freel, 1998). Research work in this area tends to depart from approaches based on the entrepreneur’s personal and psychological characteristics, preferring instead to stress the importance of the entrepreneur’s actions and, in particular, his or her way of thinking. Hence the birth of the behaviourist approach, initiated by Gartner (1988). The main contribution of this approach is to consider entrepreneurship as naturally evolving, thus rejecting the notion of stability of entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship is therefore considered as a dynamic learning process9 whereby individuals continually acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for success in their entrepreneurial process (Cope, 2005). The individualistic approach that was dominant in the 1980s is considered to be one of the main obstacles to the development of research into entrepreneurial skills (Aouni and Surlemont, 2007). This theoretical frame of reference should lead us to explore further who is best placed to teach entrepreneurship. A combination of researcher and practitioner probably constitutes a way forward. It would provide a profile that guarantees the teaching of conceptual and abstract elements as well as the establishment of links between practical elements. 1.3

Cognitive psychology: an incentive framework for the integration of experience to pedagogical ends Through our empirical study of North African entrepreneurs, we have been able to appreciate the importance of research into the actions of the entrepreneur, and more particularly into the activities he or she puts into place during the entrepreneurial process (Alsos and Kolvereid, 1998; Carter et al., 1996). This theoretical framework enabled us to recognize the necessity of setting up so-called gestation activities10 in order to successfully lead the entrepreneurs through the entrepreneurial process, while keeping in mind the potential risk of focusing too much on these gestation activities.11 From this perspective, we wish to highlight the entrepreneur’s interaction with the entrepreneurial situation he or she is involved in. Thus, the cognitive psychology approach could represent a suitable frame of reference since it aims to understand how entrepreneurs think and why they act in the way they do (Mitchell et al., 2002). In addition, research carried out in this perspective makes it possible not only to identify the knowledge, attitudes and skills available during the entrepreneurial process, but also how these skills remain specific12 to the role of entrepreneur, as opposed to other, more general, skills that could be shared by other roles, notably that of manager. We would like to note here that the role of entrepreneur and entrepreneurial skills can vary from one situation to another and from one stage of the entrepreneurial process to another. Thus, the type and level of skills required could differ according to the type of firm or organization that the entrepreneur wishes to create, the complexity of the project and the specificities of the sector. In light of this, it


169

would be beneficial to build a sustainable bridge between training and support entities. The two fields should feed each other mutually because entrepreneurial learning can be described as a continual process that facilitates the development of knowledge and skills necessary for new venture creation (Politis, 2005) and can be described as a cumulative process (Cope, 2005). Others agree, while stressing the importance of different but complementary knowledge, attitudes and skills at each stage of the entrepreneurial process (Shook et al., 2003). Apart from the fact that any entrepreneurial learning theory should take into account the impact of individual factors on entrepreneurial skills, the elements that facilitate and condition the acquisition of cognitive skills also play a vital role in the conception of programmes and more especially concerning knowledge transfer. It is about learning by doing (Kolb, 1984)13 or by direct observation (Minniti and Bygrave, 2001). 2 Proposals for a (re)conception of pedagogical content in entrepreneurship There is no longer any doubt that entrepreneurship has a legitimate place as a teaching subject in education programmes. Indeed, how can you understand the firm without understanding the phenomenon that led to its emergence?14 ask Saporta and Verstraete (2000). Entrepreneurship has experienced such an extensive development over the past few decades (Kuratko, 2005) that its teaching cannot fail to be rich and enlightening (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). However, despite the paucity of quantifiable data that could give the impression that the field of entrepreneurship is well established, it is not the case and many epistemological, theoretical, pedagogical and practical challenges have yet to be met (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). 2.1

Regarding the content of entrepreneurship education

2.1.1 A few preconditions for defining the content of entrepreneurship education Before presenting and discussing any suitable pedagogical content for what could be considered as quality entrepreneurship training, be it for any learner in general, or for a North African learner in particular, we feel it important to note a few preconditions in this field. Even if we recognize the necessary complementarity between entrepreneurship and management (Filion, 1999), entrepreneurship teaching must be different from that of traditional management. This distinction becomes all the more critical in a context that requires more leadership than management skills (Bennis and Nanus, 1985). This debate on disciplinary borders should fade into the background if we consider entrepreneurship as a combination of three value systems that correspond to our expectations as to its purpose (Béchard and Grégoire, 2007): entrepreneurial education (development of an open pedagogy that may foster a spirit of initiative among students and teachers alike), enterprise education (introduce students to the firm and not just to new venture creation) and hands-on entrepreneurial education (leadership, delegation, trust and teamwork). First, two questions about the content of entrepreneurship training need to be addressed. The first concerns the need for modelling the entrepreneurial phenomenon; the second refers to the teaching that needs to go beyond the technical dimension (Saporta and Verstraete, 2000). Subsequently, the above leads us to consider that the future of entrepreneurship education is linked, in part, to our abilities in terms of pedagogical innovation. If progress has been significant regarding pedagogical methods as such,15

170


our knowledge of the nature (and consequences) of the target learners, of the content of training courses and of their results is still a matter of debate among the specialists (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Saporta and Verstraete, 2000). Thus, the specific character of the target and its heterogeneity may raise further challenging questions for the trainer and the programme head. Finally, we must accept that entrepreneurship education, despite its undeniable benefits to students,16 has yet to demonstrate its impact and utility.17 By enabling, for instance, a better understanding of specific management problems in the conception and start-up stages, entrepreneurship training may help avoid the most basic traps and errors and maybe reduce early mortality rates. However, there are still several well-known factors on which training has little influence. Here we are referring, on the one hand, to the entrepreneur’s personality, and on the other to his or her family background (Hernandez, 1999). After all is said and done, entrepreneurship training requires a global approach to the management of each project, and a strong commitment by its founder during the creation process with many retrospective adjustments. 2.1.2 A pedagogical concept in line with the field’s epistemological debate Entrepreneurship and small firm management courses are very popular in Anglo-Saxon ‘business schools’ and elsewhere. Despite the relevance of these themes, we are still a long way short of any significant conceptual progress or even a stabilisation of the theoretical field of entrepreneurship (Aloulou and Fayolle, 2007). Entrepreneurship is still a relatively new discipline on the epistemological, theoretical and methodological levels, but which appears to be steadily making a place for itself. Aloulou and Fayolle point out that our current knowledge of the field is not yet sufficient to identify training models capable of guaranteeing entrepreneurship success (Aloulou and Fayolle, 2007). Although entrepreneurship literature illustrates the extreme diversity of entrepreneurs (absence of a single psychological profile and heterogeneity of entrepreneurial situations), we continue to wonder whether it is possible to replicate successful entrepreneurial experiences with the next generations (Dreisler et al., 2003). There is an artistic side to entrepreneurship that relates to the uniqueness of the entrepreneur. To a certain extent, the teaching of entrepreneurship remains problematic because of this inherent artistic dimension. Entrepreneurship is therefore both science and art (Aloulou and Fayolle, 2007). Its scientific dimension makes possible the transmission of knowledge (conceptual, technical and instrumental knowledge) that is required in order to analyse entrepreneurial situations, whereas its artistic dimension directs the teaching to towards more practical skills (knowhow and people skills). We note that the epistemological perspective enables not only to identify the type of knowledge required but also to wonder about its disciplinary origin. If, for some, the essence of entrepreneurship is the ability to integrate and coordinate several functional disciplines (Shepherd and Douglas, 1997), we shall limit ourselves to the type of knowledge required and to a suitable frame of reference for the construction of innovative pedagogical methods. Concerning the nature of the knowledge required, Déry and Toulouse (1994) suggest a possible way forward. They stress the importance of the concepts of actor, of business project and of process and infer a representation of entrepreneurship as a discipline focused on two key notions: the entrepreneur (the being) and the entrepreneurial project (the action).18 It is all the more crucial to define and understand the notion of the project-founder couple since it may also help us understand the difficulties experienced by those who come from a university environment and enter


171

a different world whose values they must integrate, as well as its customs or rituals even, if they wish to avoid the risk of immediate and dramatic rejection (Hernandez, 1999). As for the frame of reference concerning the construction of innovative pedagogical methods, the tendency consists in concentrating on the transversal nature of entrepreneurship, transversality inferred by the systemic and process dimension of an act or a function linked to a specific mindset. This perspective encompasses the complexity of the phenomenon within a constructivist epistemology where training is largely heuristic and articulated around a logic of action (Marchesnay, 1999). Of course, the fields concerned with the production of knowledge and the conception of pedagogical methods adapted to its teaching are both linked and mutually beneficial. 2.1.3 A pedagogical concept in line with theoretical knowledge in the field Approaches concerned with integrating the different facets of entrepreneurship have increased over the last few years, thus making it possible to clarify this field of heterogeneous knowledge (Danjou, 2002). The latter attempted this clarification based on a selective review of the literature focusing both on the evolution of researchers’ questions as well as the importance given to the entrepreneur who is at the heart of entrepreneurial reality. She was able to observe through academic research that proves both rich and influenced by often contradictory perspectives, a movement towards a unification of views on the entrepreneurial phenomenon. She presents an overview of entrepreneurship from the angle of the context, of the actor and of the action (entrepreneurial process). She specifies that these integrating perspectives can be observed across the general movement of entrepreneurship research. Clearly, some earlier works pursued a similar approach but they were isolated acts such as those of Shapero (1975). Although the movement which aims to unify entrepreneurship research is likely to develop further, it should do so without attempting to reduce the diversity of approaches in order not to inhibit the creation of knowledge. Although approaches that aim to go beyond the opposition between traitbased and behavioural approaches, in order to include in one same view the entrepreneur and his or her actions, appear promising; entrepreneurship is above all about individuals carrying out concrete acts (Danjou, 2002). Even though this theoretical framework appears to support the idea that the development of an entrepreneurship theory could help identify founding concepts of the field and define more clearly its boundaries for educational purposes, other ideas exist that, in our opinion, could minimize its importance. We distinguish two perspectives. The first is conceptual, it accepts the diversity of concepts, of points of view, of definitions and approaches, and sees this multiplicity of lenses as enriching for students and all those involved in the teaching of entrepreneurship. According to this perspective, despite the lack of consensus on what entrepreneurship is, it remains possible however, with method and rigour, to turn these conceptual weaknesses into strengths for a renewed and more mature of entrepreneurship teaching. This is, of course, on condition that the pedagogical prospects, objectives, contents and methods on offer endeavour to represent a coherent whole (Fayolle, 2005). The second perspective, which can be seen as political, considers the polysemous nature of entrepreneurship to be a chance that could facilitate its inclusion in the pedagogical programmes of education establishments by using any one particular approach (Marchesnay, 1999). In this light, the conception of pedagogical programmes in entrepreneurship remains largely determined by the specificities of the education institution’s objectives.19 In view

172


of the situation, the question of consensus on the teaching of an object with such a multitude of definitions will continue to be raised. 3 Ethnic minorities and pedagogical approaches: what specificities? In this section we clearly underline the fact that concentrating on our particular education target should, by no means, prevent us from considering the question of entrepreneurship in general, while still keeping in mind the pertinence of our choice of subject in this chapter. 3.1 Presentation of the empirical study In order to study North African entrepreneurs in their daily environment the case study method was the obvious choice of approach.20 We carried out our interviews and observations from February 2002 to December 2003. A series of individual interviews and observation periods in the companies enabled us to assemble all the information required for the seven research case studies. For the requirements of this research the seven entrepreneurs were contacted again in order to update some of the collected data, and a second set of interviews was thus organized from July to September 2008. The diversity of our cases – only two were of the same ‘type’ (see Table 11.2) – enabled us to discuss, on the one hand, entrepreneurial motivation and the pedagogical benefits (3.2.1) and, on the other hand, entrepreneur typologies and the pedagogical benefits (3.2.2). 3.2 Pedagogical lessons from the field study Based on our empirical data we may discuss two questions regarding pedagogy. The first concerns the entrepreneurs’ motivation and the second the typology thus established. 3.2.1 Entrepreneurial motivation and pedagogical benefits The motivations of the entrepreneurs studied tend to be related to social integration concerns but are also in line with an entrepreneurial logic. This entrepreneurial logic is present but is only tentatively expressed by the entrepreneurs, their discourse tending mainly to concentrate on the state of the job market, and especially on professional relationships as employees. They are positive about it and consider that they needed an incentive in order to consider new venture creation. As a result, the study of entrepreneurial motivations does not appear to raise any major obstacles as to the teaching of entrepreneurship. As regards the adversity previously mentioned, even if it is present in the majority of cases, there are, nonetheless, some cases where the entrepreneurial project results from a personal choice. So there appears to be no particular singularity on this level and we maintain our insistence on the importance of a connection between training and support. We can even note that on some aspects where education has no influence, the situation encountered raises no comments. For example, the social background was not a determining factor, neither in bringing creative fibre, nor in the choice of sector. The results in terms of profile deserve some pedagogical comments. We note that the choice of sector was determined by education and previous experience. Only two entrepreneurs emphasized a third variable: economic opportunity. Table 11.1 presents the profiles of the entrepreneurs studied. This outline leads us to make four observations. The first concerns the field of entrepreneurship. In reference to Filion (1999) who divides the field into several subfields,21 we note that the cases chosen fit into a broader vision of entrepreneurship. In the cases

173

1954

Date of arrival in France Age of founder Sex of founder Religion

New venture creation training

Management studies Social background

Type of education

Level of education

25 1986 Individual

Staff Set-up date Type of venture creation

No Son of blue-collar worker None

46 Male Muslim sympathizer Undergraduate Mechanical

Hydraulic and pneumatic

Business sector

F1

Yes Daughter of blue-collar worker None

Bachelor’s degree Biochemical

Born in France 34 Female Islam

25 1993 Individual

Sales promotion

F2

Profiles of the seven owner-managers

Characteristics

Firms

Table 11.1

None

Boiler industry techniques Yes Son of miner

41 Male Islam sympathizer A levels

98 1990 Group and individual takeover 1962

Piping and boiler industry

F3

Undergraduate Hosiery and Textile No Son of blue-collar worker None

Born in France 39 Male Indifferent

60 1983 Alone with help of spouse

IT

F4

No Son of blue-collar worker None

Undergraduate Technical

40 Male Indifferent

1960

40 1984 Takeover

Bodywork and painting

F5

Yes Son of blue-collar worker None

33 Male Islam sympathizer Undergraduate Mechanical

1968

Transformation of abrasive products 6 1993 Alone with help of brother

F6

Several

No Unemployed

None

None

50 Male Islam

1962

10 1996 Individual

Metallurgy

F7

174


Table 11.2

Typology of entrepreneurs studied

Strategic approach Sociological perspective

Defender

The ‘isolated’ type

Prospector

Analyser

F7

The ‘notable’ type The ‘nomad’ type

F4 F6

F3

The ‘enterprising type’

F2

F1

F5

studied we mainly find fields related to SMEs and management of SMEs, new venture creation and takeovers and entrepreneurship support. The second observation is more general: the characteristics of the entrepreneurs’ profiles are, if we are to believe the results of studies by Bonnet (1998), comparable to the general trend. The third concerns new venture creation training courses. We note that they are rarely taken and that our entrepreneurs seem to make do with their initial education background and their knowledge of the sector; the only entrepreneur to have taken several new venture creation training courses is the one who has no diplomas whose primary objective is professional integration. The fourth is analytical and indicates a slight difference between the personal characteristics highlighted in our empirical study and those mentioned in the literature.22 Our results do not enable us to explore the links between the culture and characteristics of the entrepreneurs. However, the importance given to the quest for a good social status leads us to look with interest into work that concentrates on using sociocultural variables to explain the desirability of new venture creation (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). 3.2.2 Entrepreneur typologies and pedagogical benefits In order to use the data collected we have decided to draw on existing typologies. We found Marchesnay’s entrepreneur typology of particular interest (1998) especially in its territorial dimension, along with Miles and Snow’s typology (1978) for the possibilities it offers by distinguishing managerial and entrepreneurial activities. Table 11.2 presents a summary of our analysis. Beyond the limits of scientific generalization, by combining the preceding elements we can take advantage of a rather broad typology that enables us to formulate several hypotheses in terms of pedagogical insights. Indeed, the typology puts forward the characteristic differences in management practices and values (Marchesnay, 1997). In pedagogical terms, we have decided to discuss six typical profiles that can be distinguished using an analytical grid to list the various facets of entrepreneurship while, at the same time, indicating their advantages and drawbacks in pedagogical terms (Appendix Table 11A.1). This approach provides insights into the suitable pedagogical content that could correspond to the different types. We will then complete our analysis with a discussion of pedagogical methods. 1.

Pedagogical content. The following presents our development on pedagogical content depending on the type of entrepreneur and the entrepreneurship paradigm considered:


175

(a) Pedagogy that fits into the new venture creation paradigm. Here the analyserenterprising type of entrepreneur merits our attention. First his experience, which has enabled him to take over a firm in difficulty, can constitute a reason not to limit knowledge solely to the field of new venture creation. Second, his motivations and the situation he faces appear to be rich in terms of valuable lessons to be learned. On the one hand, he considers the firm’s success to be entirely dependent on his ability and aims to control everything while at the same time maintaining good relations with his environment (he feels well integrated in his environment) and, on the other hand, his main problem is to act in a slow economic sector. This is a rich experience because although the takeover is considered as a delicate stage in a company’s life, such a change can lead to new impetus.23 (b) Pedagogy that fits into the small firm paradigm. The isolated-prospector type of entrepreneur appears very illustrative regarding the reluctance to equate entrepreneurship with small firms. His motivations and entrepreneurial spirit offer another dimension in terms of learning. Indeed, ‘the status of employee let him down badly and new venture creation constitutes for him a way to take up a challenge. He positions himself on a wider market and claims he is willing to seize all opportunities. He aims to conquer the Algerian market while at the same time remaining faithful to the region where he established his business. He experiences difficulties managing the day-to-day activities’. It is interesting to note here that he remains an entrepreneur but needs especially a manager. (c) Pedagogy that fits into the innovation paradigm. The defender-enterprising type of entrepreneur constitutes for us an interesting case to use, especially regarding pedagogical methods. Indeed, the usual constraints (Appendix Table 11A.1) here are counterbalanced. It is an individual who ‘had been a project bearer since childhood and who turned it into reality in her field of competence. For her, success requires good management skills and the ability to portray a reassuring image to external partners. She needs to control everything and to be admired. She concentrates solely on her job even if she recognizes that this approach is risky. She considers her origin to be a significant asset for her business’. We observe that the usual innovation obstacles constitute, in this particular case, a motivation to innovate for survival reasons. (d) Pedagogy that fits into the entrepreneurial spirit paradigm. The prospectorenterprising type of entrepreneur constitutes a clear contrast to the pedagogical choice that attempts to instil an entrepreneurial spirit by acting upon character traits. In this sense, our assessment is unequivocal: ‘he is driven by the feeling that his origins are unfavourable to a career as an employee. The salaried career path is necessary simply for one objective, to learn the trade and gain experience. He believes that competitiveness can be achieved through merit. According to him, difficulties arise from the lack of qualified workers and logistical malfunctions. He is well-established in his environment and, when necessary, does not hesitate to call on internal or external skills. He wishes to devote his time to entrepreneurial duties by entrusting the day-to-day tasks to a manager. He is demanding of both himself and his colleagues. He considers his status as a good way to establish himself in his environment’. This position is strengthened by the defender-nomad type of entrepreneur who created a new venture with the primary objective of social integration but in a sector that represents an opportunity. According to him, success depends on the

176

2.

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education ability to meet customer needs and deal with the pressure for quality. The difficulties experienced are those of an expanding company. He must face the competition and manage a company in constant development. The initial environment is used as a starting point for further growth, including abroad. He has strong skills in adapting to local and cultural specificities and he endeavours to delegate as many of the management tasks as possible. The last case, that of the prospector-nomad type of entrepreneur, appears to reveal something that the others avoided. It concurs with the ideas in Appendix Table 11A.1 concerning the entrepreneurial spirit: ‘the success of his venture creation project enabled him to establish himself professionally and to make good use of his skills. For him a company’s success depends on good management skills and the ability to gain territorial legitimacy. He feels that his North African origins do not help and believes that by proving himself he can overcome this problem. He is very attached to his power and seizes all opportunities, including integration into a socially and economically favourable environment’. Our approach enabled us to go beyond a restrictive vision of entrepreneurship. The most common situation admittedly relates to new venture creation, but the entrepreneurial spirit (Béchard and Toulouse, 1995) is also present. This spirit consists, in business just like in all human activities, in identifying opportunities and gathering the various resources necessary to create value that meets the needs of a solvent demand (Albert and Marion, 1998). Entrepreneurship corresponds more to a mindset rather than a result: new venture creation. Pedagogical methods. What follows enables us to underline, with little hesitation, the benefits of project management for entrepreneurship training. This method possesses several advantages (Bayad et al., 2002). Indeed, a project approach can make an undeniable contribution to entrepreneurship education. It not only enables to link conception and realization, but also to tackle the complexity of entrepreneurial and professional reality. The democratization of the notions of entrepreneurship and project has led to the development of original and even innovative pedagogies. This capacity for pedagogical innovation stems from the fact that project pedagogy differs from other methods that fit into the traditional paradigm separating conception and realization. Working on an entrepreneurial project not only enables students to become actors in the higher education system, but also shows them that entrepreneurship can be another potential career option. The entrepreneurial project provides the context to formulate pertinent questions regarding a desired future state, and provides vision. This vision enables the construction of a complete scenario that includes marketing, financial, organizational, human, technical aspects, and so on. Given that most of the difficulties experienced by entrepreneurs are linked more to the construction of situations rather than problem-solving (Schmitt et al., 2002), the main interest of this pedagogical organization is that it does not concentrate solely on the construction of a business plan that would merely constitute a problem-solving device. In this perspective, the training course should aim to produce a specifications brief for the conceptualization of the project and a business plan for the problem-solving part. Students should develop their estimation skills as opposed to the usual situations where precise arithmetic calculations are the norm. In other words, students must evolve in a constructivist epistemological frame of reference, as opposed to the positivist frame of reference that they are more


177

used to. The major difficulty of a project pedagogy approach is finding its place in the current higher education system. Goujet (2005) stressed a key idea that puts pedagogical engineering into perspective. In other words, it is extremely important to focus not only on pedagogical content and innovation in terms of learning, but also on the feasibility of its concrete, and more especially lasting, implementation. Entrepreneurship education no doubt constitutes a rich field for experimenting education science concepts and theories (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). Thus, although the way remains clear for pedagogical innovations in terms of pedagogical methods, nonetheless one particular approach, which seems particularly appropriate, appears already to be favoured, as formulated by Clenet (2007, p. 11): ‘just as soon as the trainees are placed in a situation where their knowledge, their desire and their power to reinvent themselves is increased, by making course content more suitable and legitimate, that is to say better understood by them, their commitment and training output often increase’. Filion (1999) supports this idea by considering that the most efficient entrepreneurship education systems are those which offer learners the greatest scope for self-management in the learning process. Conclusion This analysis relies on what seems to be an appropriate lens for examining the question of entrepreneurship education and identifying the directions and paths it should take in view of the societal issues at stake. On a theoretical level, this chapter indicates that entrepreneur support constitutes a rich source that may be used for pedagogical purposes. Given the variety of skills necessary at each stage of the entrepreneurial process, the stream of cognitive psychology encourages the establishment of strong links between entrepreneurship support and education. Then comes the question of the importance of modelling the entrepreneurial phenomenon and going beyond its technical dimensions in any attempt at formulating pedagogical content. At this stage, we note that the future of entrepreneurship education is entirely dependent on our ability in terms of pedagogical innovation, and that this innovation absolutely must make use of the field’s multidisciplinary characteristic. The epistemological path encourages us down this road since it identifies the types of knowledge needed and their disciplinary origins. Finally, the fact that there are perspectives which integrate the different facets of entrepreneurship leads us to adopt two approaches (conceptual and political) compatible with the idea that the heterogeneity of the field could give rise to a high-quality pedagogical offer. The empirical work carried out, even if it should be expanded based on wider observation, appears to encourage us to continue in this direction. This work has identified several variables capable of highlighting the link between the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education and a particular population of learners. Thus, we were able to discuss the initial results using notions such as motivation, the entrepreneurs’ profiles and, on a more general level, a typology of North African entrepreneurs. The constitution of typologies examined through the lens of various paradigms of the field may facilitate the conception of suitable pedagogical content. This approach reminds us of the progress made in the field of entrepreneurship education, in order, possibly, to discuss and justify the pertinence of the subject chosen and, based on the uniqueness of the empirical study carried out, to fuel in return the very knowledge base used it stems from. Our study is of North African entrepreneurs who have already started their own businesses in order to derive

178


pedagogical knowledge that can be applied to future learners who are likely to be potential entrepreneurs. It would be desirable to extend the research to entrepreneurs who have taken entrepreneurship training courses in France and compare the results with those obtained in other European and American countries. Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

In this chapter entrepreneurship education is used in a broad sense, based on a definition used by the European Commission expert group on entrepreneurship education (Commission Européenne, 2002). For entrepreneurship support we refer to the definition given by Fayolle and Cuzin (2005). According to Filion (1999), an entrepreneurial society requires strong links between local communities and small firms, and partnerships between professors and practitioners; the aim being to offer structuring training courses based on easily comprehensible and repeatable models. These authors were interested in the intercultural aspects that affect support relations. For them, support agencies represent a favourable environment for studying the possible specificities of immigrant entrepreneur support. See Sammut (1998). Verstraete (1997) insists on the necessity to respect the entrepreneur and encourages the supporter to take into account his cognitive context and the factors he judges to be the most important for success. Here we could mention the ‘Idéo’ approach suggested by Schmitt et al. (2007). We find interesting illustrations of this in several papers (Bares and Muller 2002; Bruyat, 1993; Fayolle, 2007b; Hernandez, 1999). Minniti and Bygrave (2001) described the specificities of this learning process. How to draw up a business plan, calculate financial forecasts, raise funds, and so on. This risk consists in dismissing from our main concerns the understanding of the entrepreneur’s role in the initiation of these gestation activities (Shook et al., 2003). In the sense that they are contextualized because they are determined by the role the entrepreneur must assume or by problems he or she must solve (Aouni and Surlemont, 2007). According to the author, experiential learning relies on two dimensions, the acquisition and the transformation of the experience, and leads the distinction of four learning and knowledge-creation modes. Even if some specific circumstances may lead to the emergence of firms, most are born from an entrepreneur’s initiative. The dominant pedagogical approach is that which consists in having the learner define and structure contexts through several levels of progress (Filion, 1999). So that the students are better prepared to play entrepreneurial roles they should have regular contact with entrepreneurs from their social background throughout their education (Filion, 1999) and the pedagogical processes should privilege learning in situations as close to reality as possible (Honig, 2004). Hernandez (1999), by limiting himself to the teaching of venture creation, mentions advantages such as the company system, the concern for pragmatism, the importance of SMEs and communication skills. Filion (1999) specifies the importance of differentiating between different courses (those concerned with raising awareness, with learning the trade, those linked to new venture creation and those concerned with the management aspects). In this light, pedagogical content must include themes such as the recognition and selection of opportunities, the development of entrepreneurial strategies, the management of emerging projects and the management of entrepreneurial teams. We are dealing here with what could be called the French school of thought on entrepreneurship education (Bruyat, 1993; 1994). In France Marchesnay (1999) distinguishes three logics of legitimization of variable importance: an engineer logic, based on technical values, a managerial logic and the emergence in the 1980s and 1990s of an entrepreneurial logic. This method has many scientific advantages. It enables us to generate and test a theory, through observations and descriptions, especially when the theories available are relatively inconclusive. We use the case study method to carry out an in-depth analysis. The cases are well documented with systematic use of both internal and external sources of information, verbatim reports from interviews and notes from direct observation. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and management of SMEs, Family businesses, Independent work, Intrapreneurial practices, New venture creation, Entrepreneurship support, and so on. The one female entrepreneur is an exception and emphasizes the compatibility of her personal traits and skills with new venture creation. Three objectives appear to be at the origin of her decision: a desire for freedom, independence and good social status. This appears to be confirmed by the fact that the survival rate of new ventures is lower than that of com-


179

panies that have benefited from a takeover, and by the fact that this entrepreneur has the right profile in choosing an identical sector to the one in which he worked previously (Bonneau, 1997).

Bibliography Albert, P. and S. Marion (1998), ‘Ouvrir l’enseignement à l’esprit d’entreprendre’, L’art d’Entreprendre, Paris: Village Mondial, pp. 28–30. Aloulou, W., and A. Fayolle (2007), ‘L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat à l’Université: enjeux, légitimité et pédagogie’, in R. Zghal, L’entrepreneuriat: théories, acteurs, pratiques, Tunisia: Sanabil Med SA, pp. 197–234. Alsos, G.A. and L. Kolvereid (1998), ‘The business gestation process of novice, serial and parallel business founders’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 22 (4), 101–14. Aouni, Z. and B. Surlemont (2007), ‘Le processus d’acquisition des compétences entrepreneuriales: une approche cognitive’, Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Sherbrooke. Audet, J., P. Couteret and G. Avenet (2004), ‘Les facteurs de succès d’une intervention de coaching auprès d’entrepreneurs: une étude exploratorie’, Fèrne Congrès International Francophone Entrepreneuriat et PME, 27–29 October, Montpellier, France. Bares, F. and R. Muller (2002), ‘Dépasser les freins au soutien entrepreneurial ? Présence ou absence du don dans un réseau d’aide à la création d’entreprise’, Congrès International de l’Académie de L’Entrepreneuriat, Bordeaux, pp. 40–55. Bayad, M., C. Schmitt and J.P. Grandhaye (2002), ‘Pédagogie par projet et enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat: réflexions autour d’une démarche et de différentes experiences’, Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Bordeaux, pp. 23–38. Béchard, J.-P. (1999), ‘Implantation d’un programme de formation en entrepreneurship et ressources interorganisationnelles régionales: le cas du Québec’, Revue Internationale P.M.E., 11 (4). Béchard, J.-P. and D. Grégoire (2007), ‘Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship in higher education: model and illustrations’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 1, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 261–84. Béchard, J-.P. and J.M. Toulouse (1995), ‘Essai de clarification des programmes de formation à l’entrepreneurship’, Cahier de Recherche 92-09-01, Chaire d’Entrepreneurship Maclean Hunter, HEC Montréal. Bennis, W. and B. Nanus (1985), Diriger: les secrets des meilleurs leaders, Paris: InterEditions. Bonneau, J. (1997), ‘Les repreneurs d’entreprises’, Problèmes Economiques (2531), 15–18. Bonnet, J. (1998), ‘Le renouvellement du tissue productif à travers la création d’entreprise en France’, Revue Internationale P.M.E., 11(1), 9–40. Bruyat, C. (1993), ‘Création d’entreprise: contribution épistémologique et modélisation’, doctoral thesis in management science, Université Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble, France. Bruyat, C. (1994), ‘Contributions épistémologiques au domaine de l’entrepreneuriat’, Revue Française de Gestion, November–December, 87–99. Busenitz, L.W. and C. Lau (1996), ‘A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20 (4), 25–39. Carter, N.M., W.B. Gartner and P.D. Reynolds, (1996), ‘Exploring start-up event sequences’, Journal of Business Venturing, 11 (3), 151–66. Clenet, J. (2007), ‘La production des competences: paradoxes et complexité des actions humaines’, in A. Lelou, H. Nekka, K. Tahari and Z. Yanat (eds), Réflexions sur la formation professionnelle et la gestion des compétences: un état des lieux interdisciplinaire, Algeria: Editions Dar El Gharb, pp. 9–24. Commission Européenne (2002), Making Progress in Promoting Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Skills through Primary and Secondary Education, report from the expert group on entrepreneurship education, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3367. Cope, J. (2005), ‘Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29 (4), 373–97. Danjou, I. (2002), ‘L’entrepreneuriat: un champ fertile à la recherche de son unite’, Revue Française de Gestion, (138), 109–25. Deakins, D. and M. Freel (1998), ‘Entrepreneurial learning and growth process in SMEs’, The Learning Organization, 5 (3), 144–55. Déry, R. and J.-M. Toulouse (1994), ‘La structuration sociale du champ de l’entrepreneurship, le cas du Journal of Business Venturing’, Cahier de Recherche 94-06-02, Chaire d’Entrepreneurship, HEC Montréal. Dreisler, P., J. Kjedsen, H. Meiborn and P. Blenker (2003), ‘How do we reformulate the question of how to learn and teach entrepreneurship?’, paper presented at the Internationalising Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference (IntEnt2003), 5–7 September, Grenoble, France.

180


Fayolle, A. (2000), ‘Setting up a favorable environmental framework to promote and develop entrepreneurship education’, ICSB (International Council for Small Business), Australia. Fayolle, A. (2005), ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intension increasing?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 89–98. Fayolle, A. (2007a), ‘De l’artisanat à la science: modèles d’enseignement et processus d’apprentissage dans les enseignements en entrepreneuriat’, 4ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Sherbrooke. Fayolle, A. (2007b), Entrepreneurship and New Value Creation – The Dynamic of the Entrepreneurial Process, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fayolle, A. and R. Cuzin (2005), ‘Les dimensions structurantes de l’accompagnement en création d’entreprise’, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, (210), 77–88. Fayolle, A. and B. Gailly (2008), ‘From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 32 (6 and 7), 569–93. Filion, L.-J. (1996), ‘Entrepreneurship and managing: differing but complementary processes’, Proceedings of the Internationalising Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference (IntEnt96), 5–8 July, ArnhemNijmegen, the Netherlands. Filion, L.-J. (1999), Tintin, Minville, L’entrepreneur et la potion magique, Montreal: Fides. Gartner, W.B. (1988), ‘Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question’, American Journal of Small Business, 12 (4), 11–32. Goujet, R. (2005), ‘L’enseignement de l’entrepreneuriat en formation initiale: Les épreuves d’un doute’, 4ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Paris. Hernandez, E.-M. (1999), ‘Enseigner l’entrepreneuriat à une population étudiante: possibilités et limites’, 1er Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Lille, 256–74. Honig, B. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business planning’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3 (3), 258–73. Jaouen A., S. Loup and S. Sammut, (2005), ‘L’accompagnement par les pairs: du transfert de connaissances à l’apprentissage conjoint’, 4ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Paris. Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D.A., R.E. Boyatzis and C. Mainemelis (2000), ‘Experiential learning theory: previous research and new directions’, in R.J. Sternberg and L.F. Zhang (eds), Perspectives on Cognitive, Learning and Thinking Styles, pp. 227–47, available at: http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/experiential-learning-theory.pdf. Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29 (5), 577–98. Levy-Tadjine, T., L.M. Barnier and R. Nkakleu (2005), ‘L’entrepreneuriat immigré nécessite-t-il un accompagnement spécifique?’ 4ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Paris. Marchesnay, M. (1997), ‘Petite entreprise et entrepreneur’, in Y. Simon and P. Joffre, Encyclopédie de gestion, Paris: Economica, pp. 2209–19. Marchesnay, M. (1998), ‘Confiance et logiques entrepreneuriales’, Economie et société, Sciences de Gestion, Series SG, nos 8–9, pp. 99–117. Marchesnay, M. (1999), ‘Diversité des pédagogies de l’entrepreneuriat: l’exemple de Montpellier’, Congrès de l’Académie de l’entrepreneuriat, Lille, pp. 275–320. McGrath, R.C., I.C. McMillan, E.A. Yang and W. Tsai (1992), ‘Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development’, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 441–58. Miles, R.E. and C.C. Snow (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structural and Process, New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Minniti, M. and W. Bygrave (2001), ‘A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25, 5–16. Mitchell, R., L. Busenitz, T. Lant, P. Mcdougall, E. Morse and E. Smith (2002), ‘Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Winter, 93–104. Mitchell., R.K., J.B. Smith, K.W. Seawright and E.A. Morse (2000), ‘Cross-cultural-cognitions and the venture creation decision’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 974–93. Mueller, S.L. and A.S. Thomas (2000), ‘Culture and entrepreneurial potential. A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51–75. Politis, D. (2005), ‘The process of entrepreneurial learning: a conceptual framework’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29 (4), 399–424. Sammut, S. (1998), ‘Comment aider les petites enterprises jeunes’, Revue Française de Gestion (121), 28–41. Sammut, S. (2003), ‘L’accompagnement des petites entreprises en creation: entre autonomie, improvisation et créativité’, in S. Marion, X. Noel, S. Sammut and P. Senicourt (eds), Réflexions sur les outils et les méthodes à usage du créateur d’entreprise, Les Editions de L’ADREG, http://asso.nordnet.fr/adreg/entrepreneuriat_éditions_adreg.htm.


181

Saporta, B. and T. Verstraete, (2000), ‘Réflexions pour une pédagogie de l’entrepreneuriat dans les composantes en sciences de gestion des Universités françaises’, Gestion 2000, 3, (mai–juin), 97–121. Schmitt, C., M. Fick and F. Laurent (2007), ‘La nécessité de problématiser: présentation d’une expérience de formation en entrepreneuriat dans une école d’ingénieurs’, Congrès de l’Académie et l’Entrepreneuriat, Sherbrooke. Schmitt, C., P.-A. Julien and R. Lachance (2002), ‘Pour une lecture des problèmes complexes en PME: approche conceptuelle et experimentation’, Revue Internationale PME, 15 (2), 35–62. Shapero, A. (1975), ‘The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur’, Psychology Today, 9 (6), 83–8. Shapero, A. and L. Sokol (1982), ‘The social dimensions of entrepreneurship’, in Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 72–90. Shepherd, D.A. (2004), ‘Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3 (3), 274–88. Shepherd, D.A. and E. Douglas (1997), ‘Is management education developing, or killing the entrepreneurial spirit?’, World Conference ICSB, 21–24 June, San Francisco. Shook, C.L., R.L. Priem and J.E. Mcgee (2003), ‘Venture creation and the enterprising individual: a review and synthesis’, Journal of Management, 29 (3), 379–99. Valéau, P. (2005), ‘L’accompagnement des entrepreneurs durant les périodes de doute’, 4ème Congrès de l’Académie de l’Entrepreneuriat, Paris. Verstraete, T. (1997), ‘Les dimensions cognitive, praxéologique et structurale de l’organisation entrepreneuriale’, VI ème Conference de L’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, June, Montreal.

182


Appendix Table 11A.1 Facets of entrepreneurship

Advantages and drawbacks in terms of pedagogical benefits

Entrepreneurship equated with the entrepreneur Entrepreneurship equated with new venture creation and the founder

Drawbacks: it results in harmful misinterpretations for entrepreneurship education. The risks are teaching questions that are specific to SMEs, and tackling the entrepreneurial logic through projects that do not concern commercial organizations. Advantages: enables to consider the ‘right founder profile’ and to focus on the start-up phase. Drawbacks: may reduce the field of entrepreneurship since it only concerns a small proportion of students, those who intend to create a firm after their studies. Also excludes the question of development of the entrepreneurial spirit in existing firms, company takeovers or independent units (project development). Fails to consider problems linked to the start-up phase, and to the firm’s increasing competitiveness. Drawbacks: few students show a strong propensity for risk taking towards an entrepreneurial project for various reasons (affect). The scientific approach is logical whereas the strategic approach is systematic and heuristic. Furthermore, the target population does not possess the tools and personal techniques necessary to ‘rationalize’ the entrepreneurial decision (intellect). The engineering student is more concerned with the technological performance of the activities to put in place, to the detriment of profitability and learning aspects for example (effect). Drawbacks: Equating entrepreneurship purely and simply with small businesses appears dangerous and pernicious. With all the usual reserves previously mentioned, vocational courses that deal with this aspect are very numerous. Small companies can be managed in different ways and the entrepreneur types with their very specific administration methods constitute an exception. Advantages: The learning is a process of trial and error in terms of experience rather than that of knowledge acquisition. Drawbacks: Should we instil an entrepreneurial spirit by modifying character traits? Or rather question whether the personalities, or even particular communities, territories or sectors would be more receptive to the entrepreneurial spirit. But we could also confront opposing hypotheses that favour an individualistic temperament, or even in reaction to the environmental background. One thesis under development suggests that territories that are considered as innovative tend to pursue a specific logic of innovation, thus blocking ‘non-standard’ or unconventional innovations. The entrepreneurial spirit would therefore cross borders. The entrepreneur emigrating to another territory may benefit from innovation incentives on the new market.

Entrepreneurship equated with innovation

Entrepreneurship equated with small firms

Entrepreneurship equated with the entrepreneurial spirit

Source:

Adapted from Marchesnay (1999).

12 Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs: a call for a new research agenda for entrepreneurship education Philippe Silberzahn and Pierre Silberzahn

Introduction Artists, scientists and entrepreneurs: beyond the popular view On the face of it, artists, scientists and entrepreneurs do not have much in common. The popular view portrays them as radically different characters. Artists are the creative people, educated in liberal arts, free of any attachment to institutions, often working alone and without constraints. Scientists, on the opposite, are men and women in white coats, grounded in rational thinking, belonging to large organizations, interested in facts and demonstrations. Artists and scientists, however, have in common that they are often outcasts, if not alien to society. When evocating such accursed characters, the names of Van Gogh, Alan Turing or Van Morrison come to mind. They also have in common that they pursue non-business activities that are ‘gratuitous’, and that few people really understand what they do. This is often true for artists, and certainly for scientists. How many people can understand ‘The effect of nonlocal confining kernels on magnetic chiral condensates’, a title randomly taken from a nuclear physics journal? The similarity is reinforced by the fact that, until recently, and particularly in the golden age of Renaissance, scientists were also often artists; Leonardo da Vinci is the most famous example of a man known as much for his art as for his science. The popular view also tends to oppose artists and scientists to business people, reproducing the age-old distinction between the contemplative and lay classes. The contemplative are removed from the contingencies of the world and engaged in a disinterested spiritual pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. Lay people, on the contrary, are involved in the world and get their hands dirty. A typical lay person, the entrepreneur is portrayed as materialistic, business oriented, with an objective of wealth creation and little time for contemplation. In this regard, asking whether artists and scientists are entrepreneurs seems odd. But it all depends on definitions. If one goes beyond the popular view, distinctions start to blur. In their study of laboratory life, Latour and Woolgar (1986, p. 190) remark that the description by scientists of their activity in quasi-economic terms is pervasive, especially among younger scientists. They note the constant reference to concepts such as ‘investment’, ‘rewarding studies’ and ‘exciting opportunities’. Clearly to these scientists, science is an entrepreneurial business. Entrepreneurship While definitions of the entrepreneur have often displayed a heroic vision, definitions of entrepreneurship usually rely on an economic conception, defining the entrepreneur in 183

184


relation with either the creation of a new organization or, more frequently, the pursuit of an opportunity. For instance, Shane (2003, p. 4) defines entrepreneurship as ‘an activity that involves the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities to introduce new goods and services, ways of organizing, markets, processes, and raw materials through organizing efforts that previously had not existed’. Defining entrepreneurs by what they do is effective within the context of business, but less so when one tries to find commonalities between entrepreneurs and others activities. Such definitions are restrictive. McClelland (1961) distinguishes between status – being an entrepreneur – and role – behaving in entrepreneurial fashion. Drucker takes the same approach when he remarks that entrepreneurship is a behavior rather than a personality trait (Drucker, 1985, p. 26). In light of which our primary interest is in entrepreneurial role behavior as an ideal or analytical type. Entrepreneurship in a broader sense refers to a set of attitudes, skills, capabilities and competences that can be applied to any area of life and work, and not just in business (Surlemont, 2007). McClelland also remarks ‘It is quite possible for individuals occupying other statuses to behave in an entrepreneurial way [. . .]. Thus a politician, a physician, a university professor or a ditch-digger may show all of the components of entrepreneurial role behavior, even though his status is not primarily that of an entrepreneur’ (McClelland, 1961, p. 207). Drucker defines entrepreneurship very broadly, but focuses on innovation: ‘entrepreneurs innovate’, adding: ‘the specific instrument of entrepreneurship is purposeful innovation’ (Drucker, 1985, p. 30). An entrepreneur is someone who innovates with a purpose, who transforms an idea into a social artifact (Sarasvathy et al., 2003). Art and science are two examples of domains where innovation plays a crucial role. Drucker’s (1985) definition therefore invites us to study the extension of the concept of entrepreneurial behavior to these domains. Accordingly, we argue three things in this chapter. First, that artists’ and scientists’ activity is entrepreneurial in nature because they purposefully innovate by inventing new worlds and paradigms, they create products and introduce them on markets, and they work in very competitive environments where they take personal risk and need to differentiate. Second, that artists and scientists are only two examples of a larger set of activities based on what we call ‘entrepreneurial self’, whereby individuals are the locus of their self-definition. Third, that the concept of entrepreneurial self calls for a new approach to entrepreneurship education to address the needs of non-business entrepreneurs. We are not interested, in the present chapter, in business entrepreneurship undertaken by artists and scientists, such as when a scientist leaves academia to create a start-up, so this chapter is not about teaching entrepreneurship to non-business students (see Brand et al., 2007). Our interest lies in studying the extent to which the activity of an artist or that of a scientist is entrepreneurial in nature, and in how entrepreneurship education can contribute to the success of such an activity. In the foreword of the first volume of this handbook, Katz (2007) remarked that all articles were written by contributors based in business schools, and calling for a broadening of the contributors’ profiles in subsequent volumes, he added: ‘Contributions to the next edition of the handbook will show a greater diversity of contributors and, with that, a greater chance of sustaining those moments of a double-loop learning perspective’ (Katz, 2007, p. xiii) This article is an answer to that call. It is written by two authors who have never researched nor written about entrepreneurship education, but who together

Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs

185

have many years of experiences as diverse as that of entrepreneur, scientist, artist, art critic, teacher and management scholar. Accordingly, this chapter does not propose detailed education programs. Rather, it is a call from practitioners to the academic community to investigate a new field of research, and extend the reach of entrepreneurship study to those activities that are entrepreneurial in nature, if not in form. A note on definitions: by artists, we mostly mean visual artists, such as painters and sculptors, whom by experience we know best, although our analysis would certainly be relevant to a larger set of artists. Similarly, we use the term ‘scientist’ to cover researchers in ‘hard’ sciences such as medicine, biology, physics, chemistry, and so on although again business academics or economists might also fit in the picture. The chapter is organized as follows. We start by showing that artists and scientists are similar to entrepreneurs in what they do. We then discuss the implication of this concept for the field of entrepreneurship education. Based on the similarities we find, we then propose a few directions to create entrepreneurial education programs. Artists and scientists: an entrepreneurial activity in nature Innovation Very much like start-ups, artists and scientists work in environments that can be described as highly disruptive and in constant renewal, where innovation is a key driver. Art is in continuous renewal in terms of theories, discourses, techniques and concepts. Art can innovate on several levels: in the choice of subject (the countryside for the impressionists), in the way to treat the subject, in the choice of support, in the choice of paint material, in the underlying concept of the work (monochrome, abstract art), in the style, and in the theory (representing a concept versus copying the reality). Before the fifteenth century, painters worked to order as craftsmen (Baxandal, 1972). The rise of individualism, the decline of aristocracy and the Church, and the rise of the middle class developed the market for portraits, with resemblance as a key skill and art as a routine work. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the invention and rapid diffusion of photography destroyed this competence (Tushman and Anderson, 1986), forcing painters out of the market. Suddenly, they had to find new reasons to show and sell their art, which meant they had to differentiate. They were forced to innovate and become entrepreneurs. The need to show and sell led to the creation of galleries, an entirely new distribution channel and business model. It led to the emergence of art dealers, who buy work in advance and act as intermediaries between the artist and the public. The need to innovate triggered the mushrooming of schools, groups and styles. Each movement claims to break new ground and for a while represents the leading edge, until yet another movement takes over, illustrating the creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942) at work in contemporary art, just like in the entrepreneurial world. The pressure for artists to remain at the leading edge of Art innovation is real. William Seitz, a critic, remarked in 1963 that ‘The dangers of the constant pressure on artists to invent, each new season, something new, dropping last year’s ideas even before they could be fully integrated and matured, have not been properly assessed. The accelerating succession of innovations has become both pathetic and really problematic. Whatever the way one looks at it, this collective neurosis is a source of anguish, frustration, and dissatisfaction.’ More than forty years later, the pressure has only increased. (Clearwater, 1984, p. 58)

186


The succession of new results and the permanent challenge to past results also constitutes the heart of science: newness is consubstantial with scientific research. There is always a time when new knowledge displaces the old. Accordingly, a scientific result that is not new is simply not a result, and one cannot willingly publish a result that has already been published. The object of science is to discover new knowledge, and to bring it to ‘market’, that is, to a social construct. So innovation is the instrument of the scientist. Scientists innovate on different levels: ideas, projects, methods, even sometimes a new interpretation of already known facts, or a new experimental approach of already known facts. These products are not always radically new. Most scientists (and artists) can only hope to innovate incrementally. Very few innovate radically. For every Einstein who invents modern physics, there are thousands of little known physicists who can only hope to bring incremental improvements to the original disruptive work of the master, sometimes in vain. New worlds Entrepreneurs, artists and scientists are creators. Their expertise is essentially a form of creative expertise. In other words, creating a firm or a market – the object of business entrepreneurship – is a subset of the larger phenomenon of novelty generation (Sarasvathy and Simon, 2000) of which creating work of art or pieces of scientific research are other subsets. Artists and scientists, like entrepreneurs, create new objects, new concepts, and new ways to view the world (Weltanschauung) and to explain it. They push back the limits of the world as we see it. In doing so, and to do so, they create new words. ‘The limits of my language are the limits of my universe’1 (Wittgenstein, 1922, p. 7) ‘About what we cannot talk, we must remain silent’ concludes Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. Like scientists and entrepreneurs, artists create new worlds beyond the limits of language (Goodman, 1978). ‘The role of Art is not to know the world, but to produce complements to the world: art creates autonomous forms added to existing ones, which they possess their own life and their own’ (Ecco, 1968, p. 28). For Wittgenstein, what is beyond our language is the realm of mystic, the unknown, and therefore the unspeakable. This term appropriately refers to the domain common to artists, scientists and entrepreneurs all busy in creating new worlds. When Google creates a new search engine, it becomes a verb: ‘I googled it and found very interesting things.’ The automobile was first a ‘horseless carriage’. It integrates our language and enlarges our universe. Astrophysics name planets before they are discovered. Science and the arts constantly create new words to express new ideas and new concepts, just like entrepreneurs create radically new markets and new products. Genetically modified organisms, stem cells, podcasts, crowdsourcing, blog and body art resonate not only in leading edge scientific, industrial or artistic areas, but also, eventually, in Peoria, New Jersey. New products Artists and scientists, like entrepreneurs, create new products that embody the result of their work. However intellectual their work can be, it always ends up in the form of products, which are then introduced on markets. Artists create work of art. A work of art is such when declared as such by the artist. To be recognized as an artist requires creating a work of art that is exhibited and sold.


187

This circular definition hides the fact that what matters in the artistic space is to be recognized by one’s peers and by the legitimating institutions (critics, exhibitions, journals, and so on). Duchamp was able to impose his ‘Readymades’ only because he was already a recognized artist, and only after they were first refused. To be recognized for an artist means to be confronted by those institutions, to access the market and to be ranked. It means to exhibit and to sell one’s work. Scientists also create products. Research might be a passion, but the actual job of the scientist is not to do research or to contribute to the advancement of science. The job of the scientist is to publish results at the highest possible level, in the best possible journals with the best co-authors, on the best current topic, before anyone else. The product of the scientist is a publication, an article in a refereed journal (Latour and Woolgar, 1986). Publishing is an absolute necessity for the scientist, for it is the key to next year’s budgets, research grants, laboratory space, PhD students, assistants and, of course, recognition. ‘Publish or perish’ is not a myth. The need to publish is so strong that research is often done to target a specific journal, rather than the opposite. Between those results and the publication stands the journal. The journal is the scientists’ distribution network, like the gallery is for the artist. Thomson Scientific, a specialist of bibliometrics, counts more than 11 000 scientific journals covering 22 main fields. About 1 million articles are published every year. Given these numbers, it is easy to get published, but it is very difficult to get published in a good journal, which is what really matters. For instance, the New England Journal of Medicine, the leading publication in medicine, receives more than 4000 submissions every year; each of them must be examined and revised by five expert reviewers. Only 6 per cent of the submissions will eventually be published. Market and competition At the turn of the twentieth century, artists had to become more aggressive marketers of their work. This disruption changed the art landscape: the old system managed by the French ‘Academie’ gave way to a new system constituted by the dealer and the gallery, cementing the emergence of an art market which they controled. After the Second World War, the dealer-gallery system succeeded the curator-gallery since the 1950s, itself almost overtaken by the commissioner-artist duo in recent times. The new exhibition commissioner is a hybrid actor, part collector, part sponsor and part businessman, able to assemble all the necessary resources to mount a new creation. Artists can exhibit their work in many places, but the gallery is still an obligatory step. The gallery owner defines an ‘editorial content’ not so much based on the intrinsic value, but on the anticipation of market value. Just like journals in science, galleries vary in quality. It is not just about being chosen by any gallery that counts, but by the top gallery in one’s category. Galleries are the ones who launch new artists, playing the same role as independent recording studios for music, or incubators for startups. They are the driver of the disruption, introducing radical new artists just like venture capitalists support startups that introduce radical new products. Auction houses, on the contrary, tend to work on more mainstream market of established artists on their way up. Competition in art is at least as intense as in science or business. But unlike in science, performance criteria are much less clear and rules are often implicit, making it even more difficult for new entrants to master the game. ‘Today, if the work of an artist does not

188


go from $10 000 to $100 000 in three years, nobody pays attention’, recently remarked Marcel Blondeau, a well-known agent in Geneva. In science, research is conducted in a situation of total competition between researchers, teams, universities and countries, and scientific journals are the battlefield of this competition. It is not just that it is very difficult to publish in a good journal. It is that publishing requires both sound strategy and flawless execution. First, scientists must select the right publication. For each subject, there can be a wide range of relevant journals, from the local amateurs’ publication to the top international journal. The right one is not necessarily the top one: it is all about aiming high enough to ensure visibility and recognition, but not too high to avoid the risk of refusal. Between the time an article is submitted and the time the journal notifies its decision, several months can pass, during which the article cannot be submitted elsewhere. This ‘lock’ means the opportunity cost of targeting the wrong paper is very high, and no hedging is possible. Should the journal require additional research to be conducted to strengthen the paper, more months or even years can pass, increasing the possibility that another team publishes the results in the meantime. Scientists live in the permanent fear of seeing their results published by a competing team. Targeting the right market at the right time for the right publication, that is, getting the market’s dynamics right, is a skill that can make the difference between an average scientist and a top scientist. Just as companies across the world can be ranked according to various criteria such as revenue, profitability or market value, artists and scientists are ranked according to hard criteria. Nobody would think anymore about ranking artists – as has been done for centuries – according to their artistic excellence. The only criterion that has survived over time is the market value. Art-Price,2 an Internet site, ranks artists according to their annual turnover and to the highest value reached by one of their work. In 2007, Warhol topped the first ranking, while Jeff Koons topped the auction ranking. After nearly ten years, Picasso, the champion of modern art has been dethroned by the guru of pop art, Andy Warhol. Second in 2006, Warhol became the global market leader in 2007 (auction sales turnover: $420 million, top auction: $64 million). Scientists are ranked based on the number and quality of their publications. The ‘citation index’ ranks scientists based on how many times they are referenced, the ranking being weighted by the importance of the journal where the referring article is published. Risk Artists and scientists take personal risks. Just as most startups fail within a few years, most artists make a living from another job, and very few live from their art. Art is another activity, like show business or sports, where many are called but few are chosen. As Saatchi, a famous collector, remarked recently: ‘The contemporary art market today concerns only about one hundred artists.’ Artists trade a small probability of big success for a low-paid job and the risk of not being recognized, ending up with nothing. However, the stakes are low. Art often requires no capital, so artists only have an opportunity cost. Unlike science, art can be a part-time job, and most artists earn a living from another, regular activity. Science is also a risky business, but in a different way. Scientists start their career by doing a PhD, living cheaply off grants and benefits. Unlike art, science is necessarily a full-time job, and it is also an activity where many are called but few are chosen. Being


189

an unemployed PhD is not so rare. Scientists might want to pursue gratuitous research topics, but the reality is that science is now a business. Most scientists are low paid as well. In Europe, they mostly work in governmental or semi-governmental organizations where they trade job security for a low salary. There, a scientist is usually paid less than a personal assistant in a medium-sized company. In the USA, most scientists receive a low salary and no job security until they get tenure, if they ever do. Scientists accept those constraints, low salary, job insecurity because they can gain recognition, which will pay for all the sacrifices. Just like aspiring entrepreneurs who put in long hours in the hope that an initial public offering (IPO) will someday pay for it. The turnover of scientists at the top is very high: most careers last only the lifetime of a grant. Particularly in the highly competitive US market, scientists – whatever their credentials – who fall behind in terms of publication or research results are literally fired by their institutions (Wysocki 2006). The market is wide, but very selective. Unlike artists, who most often earn their living with another day job, scientists work full-time for their ‘passion’ and cannot work alone, given the size of the investments that are needed. Once an initial recognition has been achieved, maybe through a good communication to a congress during the last year of their PhD, scientists have to demonstrate real entrepreneurial qualities to increase this social capital over time and capitalize on it. Typically, scientists will search for grants, initiate research programs which will result in new findings, generating new publications, increasing the recognition, and so on. Over time, the successful scientist is able to set a ‘credibility cycle’ (Latour and Woolgar, 1986, p. 201) in motion, creating and growing a full research team, maintaining an adequate level of funding, all the way to the Nobel Prize. Started as an entrepreneurial self, the life of the successful scientist becomes that of a real entrepreneur, and then of a brand manager, while the unsuccessful scientist ends up teaching to sophomores in a second-rate university. Teaching artists, scientists and entrepreneurs: a cross-fertilization If the activity of artists and scientists is similar to that of entrepreneurs, then entrepreneurship education is relevant to them. Those activities would benefit from the use of entrepreneurial concepts in their study by abandoning a rather naive view according to which scientists are paid to contribute to the gratuitous advancement of science while artists must starve to be fully creative. There are theories of art, there are theories of science, but there is no theory of the business of art, and no theory of the business of science. In sum, what is at stake is to provide artists and scientists with a theory of action they do need, and this is what entrepreneurship education could do. Implications for education and agenda for research Unlike scientists, some artists have gone some way towards abandoning the naive view and undergoing an entrepreneurial transformation of their activity. Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst are striking examples of this new approach to art. They are the two most expensive and most famous artists on the market today. Both make front-page news, are controversial enough and have broken record sales in 2008. Both know about finance and communication. They address a globalized and growing market that the recent financial turmoil does not seem to stop. More than 100 important museums have been opened in the last 25 years; each of them wants to have at least 2000 works, and the number of rich collectors has been multiplied by 20. Koons and Hirst are pure Schumpeterian

190


entrepreneurs having a deep knowledge and understanding of their market, driving an international strategy, inventing new products and new ways to promote them, and disrupting traditional industry structures. Hirst, in particular, makes no secret of his objective to disrupt the current art market: When I got into the art world, I consciously wanted to change it. I found it really annoying because it seemed like a kind of club where people would sell cheaply to investors and they’d make the money. Collectors would take the art off the artists and, because they came in early and they gave the artist a little bit of money, later, when the artwork got resold, it would be the collector who made the big money in the secondary market. And I always thought that was fucking wrong. I’m the artist, the primary market. And I want the money to be in the primary market.3

Modigliani, and thousands of artists who died in poverty, would have concurred. Indeed today, art entrepreneurs are not the artists, but the other actors of the market: critics, agents, merchants, foundations and museums. It is they who capture most of the value, taking advantage of the artists’ naive view of their work mentioned above. Artists are only the suppliers of relatively cheap goods, and Hirst is acutely aware of this fact. True to his word, Hirst made history on 15 September, 2008, by having Sotheby’s auctioning 223 of his works, bypassing galleries which had been hitherto the only way to access the market for new works. Proving skeptics wrong, the sale grossed more than £110 million. By going direct and becoming his own manager, the artist increased his market power and changed the face of the art business. As The Economist noted: The fact that Mr. Hirst – in sharp contrast to Mr. Doig, another leading artist who produces only six to eight paintings a year – has been able to produce enough work to fill 223 lots has to do with the fact that he is no longer an artist, in the normal sense of the word, but the head of a global brand selling instantly recognizable work that is made in factories.4

Koons and Hirst are the new face of art, as removed from the romantic conception of art as a corner shop is from a high-technology startup. There is little doubt that a better knowledge of entrepreneurial concepts, indeed an entrepreneurial view of their activity, would help the artists recapture some of the market power they have lost to the distribution network, just as Hirst did. Teaching entrepreneurship to artists and scientists What to teach artists and scientists, then? While the majority of artists and scientists might stick to a romantic view of their activity, entrepreneurship education might target ‘growth artists’ and ‘growth scientists’ who are more interested in following Damien Hirst’s business model than Modigliani’s. They would benefit from education in the following areas. ●

The concept of opportunity discovery: artists and scientists must learn to evaluate their environment in terms of opportunities, i.e. unfulfilled gaps between supply and demand, understanding what the market wants or does not want, or rather anticipate what the market will and will not want in the future. They must, to quote Wayne Gretzky, be able to ‘Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it is.’

Artists and scientists as entrepreneurs ●

● ●

●

●

191

The market as an institution: artists and scientists must learn to understand the dynamic nature of their environment and the play between the actors that constitutes the market; critics, galleries and buyers, for artists, and governments, research foundations, journals and universities for scientists. Theories of innovation: artists and scientists must learn about dominant design, disruptions and paradigms. Marketing and brand management: consistent with the concept of entrepreneurial self, artists and scientists must learn to think of themselves in terms of brand, just as Damien Hirst does. Some probably do so unconsciously, but this must be managed consciously. Finance: artists do not raise money but they apply for grants from foundations and governments institutions. As they grow, they manage budgets and sponsors, as well as revenue and profits. Similarly, scientists must raise money for uncertain projects with a high risk of failure, very much like business entrepreneurs. They must sell the project to stakeholders and investors, and report to them on a regular basis. They do need to be taught about business plans, financial forecasts and stakeholders’ management. Organizational management: Jeff Koons heads an 80-people team and goes to his ‘office’ at 8 every morning. Growth artists create organizations, hire, manage and fire people, so notions of team management, human resource and welfare laws are of interest to them. While scientists work within established institutions, they start managing people and budgets early in their career.

Teaching art and science to entrepreneurs We have suggested that teaching entrepreneurship to artists and scientists would be beneficial. Let us finish by reversing the proposition: what about teaching art and science to entrepreneurs? Entrepreneurship is a science of the artificial (Sarasvathy, 2003). Creating a firm or a market – the object of business entrepreneurship – is a subset of the larger phenomenon of novelty generation (Sarasvathy and Simon, 2000), i.e. it is a creative activity. Entrepreneurship requires the development of faculties using the resources of the right side of the brain – imaginative and intuitive (Filion and Dolabela, 2007). More generally, entrepreneurs create not just firms and markets, but also products, words and concepts. Art is a unique open door to the inner workings of society, uncovering trends and disruptions and therefore sources of business opportunities. When Nokia wanted to understand where the emerging mobile phone market was going in the early 1990, the company did not commission a market study. Rather, its top executives embarked on a field trip to the hippest places on earth known to be on the cutting edge of fashion and lifestyle: Venice Beach in California, the nightclub area of Tokyo and London’s King’s Road, to meet the very people creating future trends and spend time with them.5 Educational programs on art could cover such topics as: ● ● ●

teaching about art – art history, artistic movements, and so on; teaching creativity, imagination, and novelty generation; helping entrepreneurs understand and make sense of their environment, and anticipate its evolution.

192


The continuous technological evolution of the environment is an important source of entrepreneurial opportunities, and understanding science and technology, how scientists work as well as how science functions is therefore necessary to entrepreneurs. While some may be familiar with technology, very few understand science. The shared entrepreneurial nature of their activity is a base upon which entrepreneurship education can build to help scientists know about entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurs know about science. Specifically, educational programs could cover such topics as: ●

● ●

teaching about scientific developments in areas such as biotechnology, renewable energy and pretty much any scientific subject as all of them have an impact on business; explaining scientific institutions: what they are, how they work and how to work with them; getting scientists and entrepreneurs to meet and interact on real projects, thus helping get to know each other and work together.

Conclusion We have shown that, against the popular view, artists and scientists represent two activities that are strongly entrepreneurial in nature, even though at first look they are very different from business entrepreneurship. Their work requires constant innovation; they invent new words and create new products; it takes place in a highly competitive environment. Their personal involvement is high and they take risks, even though the risks differ: most artists do not earn anything from their work ever, while scientists usually are salaried by some research organization. We have proposed a few directions for an education program aimed at artists and scientists. We have also suggested that business entrepreneurs would benefit from an education in art and in science. We invite scholars to investigate this question further so as to better understand the specificities of the work of artists and scientists from an entrepreneurial perspective and design education programs that are relevant to them, and more generally to better understand how art, science and entrepreneurship can contribute to each other. Notes 1. Quotes in languages other than English have been translated by the authors. 2. www.artprice.com 3. Source: interview with Joe La Placa on http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/laplaca/laplaca612-07.asp. 4. ‘The shark’s last move’ in The Economist, 11 September 2008. 5. Source: http://www.strategos.com/index.cfm?target=ResultsOfOurWork&subtarget=casestudies&case= nokia.

References Baxandal, M. (1972), Painting and Experiences in Fifteenth Century in Italy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brand, M., I. Wakkee and M. v. d. Veen (2007), ‘Teaching entrepreneurship to non-business students: insights from two Dutch universities’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 2 – Contextual Perspectives, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Clearwater, B. (1984), Mark Rothko: Works on Paper, Manchester, VT: Hudson Hills Press. Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: HarperBusiness.


193

Ecco, U. (1968), L’oeuvre ouverte, Paris: Seuil. Published in English as The Open Work, Harvard University Press, 1989. Filion, L.J. and F. Dolabela (2007), ‘The making of a revolution in Brazil: the introduction of entrepreneurial pedagogy in the early stages of education’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 2 – Contextual Perspectives, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Goodman, N. (1978), Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Katz, J. A. (2007), ‘Foreword: the third wave of entrepreneurship education and the importance of fun in learning’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 1 – A General Perspective, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar, (1986) Laboratory Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McClelland, D.C. (1961), ‘Characteristics of the entrepreneur’, in D.C. McClelland, The Achieving Society, Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Sarasvathy, S. and H.A. Simon, (2000), ‘Effectuation, near-decomposability, and the creation and growth of entrepreneurial firms’, paper presented at First Annual Research Policy Technology Entrepreneurship Conference, University of Maryland. Sarasvathy, S.D. (2003), ‘Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 203–20. Sarasvathy, S.D., N. Dew, S. Read, and R. Wiltbank, (2003), ‘Accounting for the future: psychological elements of effectual entrepreneurship’, Journal of Applied Psychology, (under review). Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper & Row. Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual–Opportunity Nexus, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elagar. Surlemont, B. (2007), ‘Promoting enterprising: a strategic move to get schools’ cooperation in the promotion of entrepreneurship’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 2 – Contextual Perspectives, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Tushman, M.L. and P. Anderson (1986), ‘Technological discontinuities and organizational environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (3), 439–65. Wittgenstein, L. (1922), Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, London: International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and scientific methods. Wysocki, B. (2006), ‘Ivory power: once collegial, research schools now mean business’, Wall Street Journal, 4 May, p. A1.

13 What entrepreneurial competencies should be emphasized in entrepreneurship and innovation education at the undergraduate level? Edgar Izquierdo and Dirk Deschoolmeester

Introduction Over the past decade, great attention has been paid to competency-based education (Stoof, 2005), and its relevance in entrepreneurship education and training at the university level as well as other training venues has become apparent (Bird, 2002). A basic premise of this movement is that an educational stance based on competency development can facilitate learning in a society characterized by complexity and rapid changes. Facilitation of learning may be possible because we can focus our efforts on the competency characteristic we want to influence in students. This implies that education based on competencies does not necessarily consider the content as the starting point for curriculum development, but the competencies that are relevant to be successful in a certain task or job. Competencies are seen as characteristics that a person brings to a job situation, which can result in effective and/or superior performance in such job (Boyatzis, 1982). These characteristics include: motives and traits, social role and self-concept, and knowledge and skills (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer, 1993). In the case of entrepreneurs, they do not have jobs in the traditional sense; however, they do have jobs or tasks as they pursue and run a new business (Bird, 2002). Therefore, from an educational perspective, the question that needs to be answered is: what are the entrepreneurial competencies that universities should address in entrepreneurship education at the undergraduate level? In this regard, the model proposed by Boyatzis (1982) is relevant in this study as it provides the framework that helps identify what competencies and at what level they should be addressed in entrepreneurship education. It also helps link the activities to be included in an educational intervention with the levels of competencies that we want to influence in students. The contribution of this chapter is that it provides a basic set of competencies that can be used by educators when delineating the competencies that students should acquire/develop through formal entrepreneurship education. Identifying relevant entrepreneurial competencies to be instilled in students is valuable because of their expected causal relationship with venture initiation and success (Bird, 1995). The following sections are organized as follows. First, we present a brief discussion of the definition of a competency as it provides the framework for selecting the set of competencies relevant for entrepreneurship education. Second, previous research on competencies of entrepreneurs is discussed, which is helpful to develop an initial list to be presented to entrepreneurs and academics experts in the field of entrepreneurship. Third, the method of the study is described. Then, the results are presented followed by a discussion and implications for future research. 194

What entrepreneurial competencies should be emphasized at undergraduate level?

195

How is a competency defined? The extant literature has identified different definitions of an individual competency. For this study, we will use the one proposed by Boyatzis (1982) who defines a competency as an underlying characteristic exhibited by a person that can result in effective and/or superior in a job (Boyatzis, 1982). This characteristic may be a motive, trait, skill, aspect of one’s self-image or social role, or a body of knowledge which an individual uses. Based on Boyatzis’s definition, Bird (1995) maintains that entrepreneurial competencies can be seen as underlying characteristics possessed by a person which result in new venture creation, survival and/or growth. According to the level of exhibition, entrepreneurial competencies are categorized as threshold or success. The former are those considered as baseline or at a minimum standard, which include the competencies required to successfully create a business. The latter are the competencies necessary to go beyond launch into organizational survival and growth. The next section briefly reviews the entrepreneurial competencies that have been identified in previous research. Competencies of entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs are permanently challenged to deploy a set of competencies to succeed in their entrepreneurial endeavors. Previous studies have been conducted in which the concept of entrepreneurial competency has been the guiding principle of analysis (Chandler and Hanks, 1994; Chandler and Jansen, 1992; Man and Lau, 2000). These studies, however, were oriented to link managerial or entrepreneurial competencies with firm-level performance. In an educational setting, on the other hand, we are mainly interested in individual-level competency as we attempt to help students become more skilled and motivated to start and succeed in new ventures (Bird, 2002). Thus, a common concern among academics is to get students to become more entrepreneurial and more innovative for such purpose. To do so, one of the goals of entrepreneurship education is to instill in students the development of entrepreneurial competencies as to be better prepared for an entrepreneurial life. Therefore, one of the first steps towards competency-based education in the entrepreneurship field is the identification of relevant entrepreneurial competencies as they can predict business formation and success within and across cultures (Mansfield et al., 1987). Knowing what competencies need to be developed is crucial in trying to meet the training needs of people in each phase of the entrepreneurial process. Previous studies have suggested that entrepreneurship education has to be oriented to intervene in each stage of development, which include: awareness, pre-startup, startup, growth and maturity (Cox, 1996; Henry et al., 2005a; 2005b). By paying attention to the training needs of individuals, educators and trainers can devise their content and approach to improve the entrepreneurial learning process. At the first stage, an educational intervention mainly focuses on the various aspects of creating and running a new business (Henry et al., 2005a; 2005b). This implies that courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels should seek to promote the development of skills and values, and possibly an attitude change towards starting, owning, and managing a company, as well as working in a successful organization (Jamieson, 1984). At later stages in the entrepreneurial process, education addresses the needs of would-be entrepreneurs for a self-employment career by encouraging them to set up and manage their own businesses and to secure their growth and future development.

196


Levels of entrepreneurial competencies An action, or specific behavior of an individual, is manifested by competencies that are an expression of his/her characteristic or several characteristics (Boyatzis, 1982). In the case of entrepreneurs, different levels of entrepreneurial competencies are exhibited by individuals who start businesses or carry out changes in existing organizations and who add value through their opportunistic vision and effort (Bird, 1995). At the motives and traits level, common attributes of entrepreneurs include tolerance of ambiguity, locus of control, propensity to take risk, achievement values and task motivations are common attributes of entrepreneurs (Koh, 1996; Miner et al., 1989; Pandey and Tewary, 1979). Bird (1995) points out, however, that research is mixed, especially when the success criteria is considered. For example, risk-taking propensity has not been definitely linked to entrepreneurial effort and outcomes because no conclusive results have been found. According to Schumpeter (1934), risk-taking propensity is inherent in ownership rather than entrepreneurship; hence, it cannot be used as distinguishing characteristic of an entrepreneurial behavior (Brockhaus, 1980). Successful entrepreneurs are not gamblers, they are more inclined to take moderate than high risk as they tend to assess and calculate it carefully (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991; Mancuso, 1975). Others such as self-confidence, persistence, and integrity have also been regarded as competencies exhibited by entrepreneurs; however, Bird (1995) emphasizes that no definite evidences have been found to differentiate successful from less entrepreneurs. At the social role and self-concept level, Bird (1995) emphasizes that little formal research has been conducted. Differentiating competencies at this level can include: recognizing the relevance of relationships in a business context, concern for high quality of work, assertiveness, having self-confidence and taking actions to overcome obstacles (McBer, 1983; 1986; McClelland, 1987; Spencer and Spencer, 1993). Furthermore, at the role-level competencies, previous research stresses that the entrepreneurial role is crucial to be successful in business (Chandler and Hanks, 1994; Chandler and Jansen, 1992). This role refers to behavioral actions associated with scanning for opportunities, selecting those that are promising and formulating strategies to exploit them. At the knowledge and skill level, competencies such as finance/cash management, engineering, accounting, marketing and sales have been frequently cited as important to succeed in business (Hood and Young, 1993) as they are instrumental in the functional aspects of an entrepreneurial venture. Furthermore, leadership, communication and human relations have also been regarded as crucial skills areas of knowledge to success. These last competencies are important for entrepreneurship as entrepreneur has to be able to persuade and discuss with various stakeholders such as customers, clients, suppliers, competitors, service providers and the like (Onstenk, 2003). One of the challenges of entrepreneurs is to remain constantly innovative, which drives them to learn continuously in their everyday activities. That is why the capacity of individuals for innovation is a crucial factor to succeed in business (Walker et al., 2007), and a differentiating criterion to distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs (Carland et al., 1984). An associated skill is creativity, which is an essential competency in the innovative process (Kuratko and Hodgetts, 2004; Ronstad, 1985). Being creative requires being different, curious and persistent that enable individuals to generate novel ideas. Other competencies such as opportunity identification and venture evaluation, career


197

assessment, deal making, networking, stress-coping mechanisms, intuitive thinking, seeing the market from a different angle, and identifying and solving problems are also crucial to succeed in business (DeTienne and Chandler, 2004; Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994; Lindsay and Craig, 2002; Man and Lau, 2000; Ronstad, 1985; Shane, 2000). Important emphasis has been put on networking and team-building skills since evidences indicate that entrepreneurs with these skills are more successful than entrepreneurs who do not possess them (Bird, 1988). In addition to the competencies described above, the extant literature highlights the importance of decision making competency as crucial within the entrepreneurial process for its implications and issues involved (Busenitz and Barney, 1997; Eisenhardt, 1989; Smith et al., 1988). To be successful, entrepreneurs are constantly required to make quick decisions, which are especially the case of the computer industry due to the accelerated changes in demand, competition and technology (Eisenhardt, 1989). The extant literature presents other competencies such as coping with failure, concern for quality of work, the ability to motivate others and so on that have not been mentioned in the above discussion. However, the competencies already described are a good summary for the purpose of this study as we seek to develop a basic list to be used in competency-based education in the sense that they are commonly deployed by entrepreneurs to be successful at starting and running their ventures. Research method The present study is oriented to provide information that can be used by educators when having to delineate the competencies that students should acquire/develop through entrepreneurship education. The study was tackled by an analysis of responses to a survey among entrepreneurs and academics experts in the field of entrepreneurship. These two parties were required to give their opinions about the competencies that are crucial when getting involved in an entrepreneurial venture. In order to get a reduced list, the competencies were sorted based on the score means from highest to lowest. Then, we used a cut-off point of 4 for selection purposes so that a competency lower than this value was excluded from the final list. This cut-off point was used because the 4 and 5 numbers represent ‘High importance and Very high importance’ values in the measurement scale. Sample The entrepreneurs’ population consisted of founders of nearly 1870 companies within the small and medium enterprise (SME) sector. This list was obtained from the Chamber of Commerce in Guayaquil, one of the most industrial and commercial cities in Ecuador. A purposeful sample of 60 Ecuadorian entrepreneurs was drawn from the population whose companies met two basic criteria: (1) the company had to be less than 6 years old as we were interested in relatively newly created firms; and (2) the company had to be a manufacturing or service firm. That is, the study excluded firms whose main activity was to resell goods from other companies. By following this approach, the selected sample included firms in development of software products, manufacturing of agricultural products, food production, manufacturing of electronic and mechanical products, services in computer science, consulting services in management and related areas, and mechanical and electrical services. The entrepreneurs were contacted by phone and invited to

198


participate on the survey. Forty entrepreneurs agreed to participate and answered the questionnaire for a response rate of 66.7 per cent. Eighty-five per cent of the entrepreneurs were male, on average 40 years old, and the majority of them possessed, at least, an undergraduate level degree. From the population of experts, a purposeful sample of 53 academics was selected. These experts were chosen mostly from a list of participants who had attended one of the important European conferences in entrepreneurship in the year 2004. The questionnaire was sent to academics by the Internet with a cover letter explaining the purpose and scope of the study. Forty three academics answered the questionnaire, from which 30 were from countries that included: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States of America. The other 13 academics were from Ecuador, for a response rate of 81.1 per cent. Survey instruments Based on the existing literature, two questionnaires were developed and presented to respondents, one to entrepreneurs and the other to academics. A list of entrepreneurial competencies was fulfilled by reviewing the works of: Boyatzis (1982); Chandler and Jansen (1992); Hood and Young (1993); Spencer and Spencer (1993); Chandler and Hanks (1994); Garavan, and O’Cinneide (1994); Bird (1988; 1995; 2002); Shane (2000); Lindsay and Craig (2002); Man and Lau (2000); Onstenk (2003); DeTienne and Chandler (2004); Honig (2004); and Stoof (2005). The survey instrument to entrepreneurs was designed to gather information in two main areas: (1) demographic characteristics; and (2) the respondents’ opinions regarding the importance of possessing and exhibiting competencies when starting and running a new business. The other questionnaire intended to have inputs from the perspective of academics. The questionnaire to entrepreneurs was administered either via a face-to-face interview, the Internet or telephone while the questionnaire to academics was done via the Internet. The variables were measured by the use of a five-point Likert scale, being 1 ‘Very low importance’ and 5 ‘Very high importance.’ Results In this study, entrepreneurs and academics were asked to indicate their opinions regarding the importance of competencies when getting involved in an entrepreneurial venture. Tables 13.1 and 13.2 present the intercorrelations among the study variables of interest. Responses from both parties were ordered based on the score means for each of the entrepreneurial competencies considered in the study (see Tables 13.3 and 13.4). As can be seen, results indicate relative differences in responses from the entrepreneurs’ and academics’ opinions. Entrepreneurs, on the one hand, chose decision-making most frequently as of high importance when embarking on and running an entrepreneurial venture, whereas academics were in favor of identifying business opportunities, which is an aspect more related to innovation. Most of the respondents (87.5 per cent of entrepreneurs) indicated that decision making is a highly important competency that must be exhibited by entrepreneurs in their entrepreneurial endeavors. This yielded an average of 4.88, being 5 the highest value on the scale. Furthermore, innovating thinking, identifying and solving problems, and having a different view of the market were the next three

199

1. DM

3. OI

– .321* .066 .272 .350* .263 .014 .028 .261 .234 .060 .176

4. CWS

– .276 .328* .458** .401* .188 .033 .201 .497** .072 .212

5. CWU

7. INTT

– .231 – .363* .488** .178* –0.53 .000 .189 .111 .251 .376* .038 .205 .245 .117 .424** .006 .228

6. INNT

9. DM

– .338* – .146 .214 .212 .123 .345* .380* .326* .458** .312 –.045 .280 .235

8. DVM

– .565** .262 .447** .445** .409**

10. OE

– .157 .163 .340* .278

11. ISP

– .413** .163 .359*

12. NW

– .120 .359*

13. TCR

– .450**

14. TW

–

15. COM

Notes: N = 40. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74. DM: Decision making; TB: Team building; OI: Opportunity identification; CWS: Coping with stress; CWU: Coping with uncertainties; INNT: Innovative thinking; INTT: Intuitive thinking; DVM: Having a different view of the market; DM: Deal making; OE: Opportunity evaluation; ISP: Identifying and solving problems; NW: Networking; TCR: Taking calculated risk; TW: Team work; COM: Communication.

– .007 – .036 .242 –.141 .570** .091 .094 .185 .165 .314* .352* –.250 .237 .352* .148 .403** –.051 .126 .262 –.121 .324* .532** –.019 .025 .139

2. TB

Zero-order correlations for study variables of interest in regard to entrepreneurs’ opinions

1. DM – 2. TB .086 3. OI .165 4. CWS .062 5. CWU .161 6. INNT .409** 7. INTT .266 8. DVM .146 9. DM –.085 10. OE –.114 11. ISP .018 12. NW .152 13. TCR .024 14. TW .183 15. COM –.055

Table 13.1

200

– .298 .186 –.038 .136 .015 .133 .018 .066 .146 .205 .066 .214 .220 .144

1. DM

– .124 –.236 .262 .117 .045 .039 .158 .003 –.026 .483** .042 .551** .242

2. TB

– –.277 –.020 .403** .166 .210 .065 –.071 .264 .037 .101 –.037 –.103

3. OI

– .339* –.291 .170 .021 –.097 –.078 .086 –.170 .083 –.230 –.147

4. CWS

– .023 .183 –.024 .265 –.051 .092 .139 .028 .104 –.166

5. CWU

– .329* .215 .137 .193 .125 .143 .043 .396** .280

6. INNT

– .255 .006 –.199 .193 .073 –.025 .177 .105

7. INTT

– –.047 –.018 .118 .135 .322* .135 .311*

8. DVM

– .155 .342* .151 .074 .219 .067

9. DM

– .163 .016 .469** .433** .186

10. OE

– .125 .125 .010 .080

11. ISP

Zero-order correlations for study variables of interest in regard to academics’ opinions

– .094 .272 .230

12. NW

– .263 .373*

13. TCR

– .450**

14. TW

–

15. COM

Notes: N = 43. ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Cornbach’s alpha = 0.7. DM: Decision making; TB: Team building; OI: Opportunity identification; CWS: Coping with stress; CWU: Coping with uncertainties; INNT: Innovative thinking; INTT: Intuitive thinking; DVM: Having a different view of the market; DM: Deal making; OE: Opportunity evaluation; ISP: Identifying and solving problems; NW: Networking; TCR: Taking calculated risk; TW: Team work; COM: Communication.

1. DM 2. TB 3. OI 4. CWS 5. CWU 6. INNT 7. INTT 8. DVM 9. DM 10. OE 11. ISP 12. NW 13. TCR 14. TW 15. COM

Table 13.2

What entrepreneurial competencies should be emphasized at undergraduate level? Table 13.3

201

Ratings of entrepreneurial competencies according to entrepreneurs’ opinions

Entrepreneurial competencies Decision making Innovative thinking Identifying and solving problems Having a different view of the market Communication Deal making and negotiation Identifying business opportunities Evaluating business opportunities Networking Team work Team building Intuitive thinking Coping with uncertainties Coping with stress Taking calculated risk

M

SD

4.88 4.63 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.45 4.40 4.40 4.30 4.23 4.18 4.08 3.98 3.98 3.85

0.34 0.59 0.54 0.78 0.88 0.68 0.93 0.67 0.76 0.89 0.78 0.97 0.89 1.07 0.80

Notes: N = 40. M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation.

Table 13.4

Ratings of entrepreneurial competencies according to academics’ opinions

Entrepreneurial competencies Identifying business opportunities Evaluating business opportunities Decision making Networking Innovative thinking Identifying and solving problems Coping with uncertainties Communication Deal making and negotiation Coping with stress Taking calculated risk Team building Intuitive thinking Having a different view of the market Team work Notes: N = 43. M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation.

M

SD

4.67 4.51 4.51 4.35 4.26 4.19 4.19 4.07 4.02 3.91 3.91 3.86 3.79 3.60 3.58

.61 .67 .67 .72 .37 .85 .76 .86 .80 .90 .84 .97 .97 1.0 1.0

202


Table 13.5

Selected entrepreneurial competencies for entrepreneurship education

Decision making Innovative thinking Identifying and solving problems Identifying business opportunities Evaluating business opportunities Communication Deal making and negotiation Networking

entrepreneurial competencies in order of importance. On the other hand, 72.1 per cent academics considered identifying business opportunities as of very high importance for business success, which resulted in an average of 4.67. Evaluating business opportunities, decision making and networking were the next three competencies most frequently cited by academics as highly important for entrepreneurship. Competencies to be emphasized in entrepreneurship education The main purpose of the study was to obtain a reduced list of competencies with the idea of facilitating the design of an instructional method for teaching entrepreneurship to undergraduate students. It is reasonable to assume that undergraduates are naive students in entrepreneurship and, as such, we can expect that they are in their early stage of entrepreneurial development. Hence, the present study was intended to determine a basic set of competencies that need to be possessed by individuals in their effort to successfully create a new venture. Following this approach, the competencies with a score mean equal or greater than 4 were chosen as they were considered of high and very high importance for entrepreneurship by entrepreneurs and academics (see Table 13.5). As we can see in Table 13.5, the resulting list included eight competencies that were common among both parties’ opinions and with a score mean equal or higher than 4. The resulting competencies are: decision making, innovating thinking, identifying and solving problems, identifying and evaluating business opportunities, communication, deal making and negotiation, and networking. Discussion and implications The relative differences in opinions found between entrepreneurs and academics look as if both parties had distinct attitudinal positions. On the one hand, academics seem to have a less practical attitude and take into account the competencies that are viewed as crucial in the entrepreneurship literature (Bird, 1995). Accordingly, we think that the focus of academics may be less on which competencies entrepreneurs really exhibit and frequently exercise in a daily real-life situation when running their companies. This could be especially true since the extant literature posits that entrepreneurship is about the identification and the development of entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). On the other hand, the concerns of entrepreneurs, already embarked on an entrepreneurial opportunity, seem to be a little more downstream and focus on some critical


203

tasks that, amongst others, may involve: access to a substantial customer base, securing following up financing, negotiating with providers, developing and effectively using personal network of contacts, understanding and controlling the enterprise as a whole, understanding and proficiently maneuvering within an industry, embracing competence of others, pursuing special know-how to a competitive position in the marketplace, maintaining a strategic focus, and dealing with uncertainty (Baron and Markman, 2003; Bird, 1988; 1995; Dubini and Aldrich, 1991; Herron and Robinson, 1993; Mitton, 1989; Witt, 2004). However, it is important to note that these competencies may vary according to the development of the particular venture (for example early stage compared to a growing stage firm), the sector in which it operates (high technology versus fast-moving consumer goods) and the environmental circumstances that drive an entrepreneur to initiate a business (Dubini, 1988; Gatewood et al., 1995; Kourilsky and Walstad, 2002). In addition, the level of these competencies exhibited can determine whether they are categorized as threshold or success (Bird, 2002). The former are understood as those entrepreneurial competencies necessary to successfully create a business, and the latter as those required for success in such a venture (Bird, 1995). By taking note of these complexities, the specificities of each entrepreneurial venture become a step further in the analysis, although not covered in the present study. Implications of the study Educating students for exploiting their capabilities in an entrepreneurially oriented career has become a major impetus of entrepreneurship education. Going in this direction, we have argued that entrepreneurship education should focus attention on competency development. In this regard, the concept of a competency is useful in facilitating the design and implementation of instructional methods for entrepreneurship education. This term can also help identify which competencies and at what level they need to be addressed to better prepare students for a future entrepreneurial career. By recognizing which entrepreneurial competencies are conducive to succeeding in business, educators can include in their courses in- and out-class activities to instill in students the development of desirable competencies. We contend that activities to be exercised by students should be designed to mimic real-world situations. For example, allowing students to create their own enterprise during the course of an educational intervention is helpful to expose them to complex situations, such as lack of information, uncertainty, development and use of personal contacts, search for advice from experts, and so on. This experience can provide students with the environment to become aware of the difficulties in creating a venture and in dealing with limited resources, which is usually the case for entrepreneurs (Hisrich and Peters, 2002). Furthermore, students can be encouraged to think innovatively as to be able to enter the market with and innovative product or service and to remain competitive (Carland et al., 1984; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). In addition, they can have the opportunity to experience the need of possessing and developing a network of contacts both during the startup phase and in other phases of running the business (Greve and Salaff, 2003; Witt, 2004). Another benefit may be the possibility for students to realize the importance of having good communication skills, which are regarded as essential for entrepreneurial advancement (Hood and Young, 1993). Another potential benefit is related to the opportunity to put into practice special know-how and previous experience

204


for designing a specific product or service as well as to embrace the competence of others and to build a proper team. Recommendation for future research We have developed a working list of competencies that should be emphasized in entrepreneurship education. However, the study has only considered the opinions of Ecuadorian entrepreneurs, which is one of the limitations of the study. Another limitation is due to our methodological choice in selecting the entrepreneurs. That is, we did not choose them based on their companies’ performance since the study did not investigate how successful they were, for instance, in terms of sales or net profit growth. Therefore, an important direction for future research is to explore whether entrepreneurs from other countries have similar views, which can give us better insights about the competencies that entrepreneurship education should entail. That is, further investigation is needed to examine whether contextual factors may explain differences in opinions, if any exist, of entrepreneurs from different countries. It is also important to conduct more research to confirm or refute the findings of this study by comparing the opinions of successful and less successful entrepreneurs. Although the findings presented in this study require further validation, they provide first insights on the competencies to be emphasized in entrepreneurship education. Finally, we would like to emphasize that by instilling in students the development of entrepreneurial competencies, we can at least encourage them to become more entrepreneurial. References Baron, R.A. and G.D. Markman (2003), ‘Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41–60. Bird, B. (1988), ‘Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention’, Academy of Management Review, 13, 442–53. Bird, B. (1995), ‘Toward a theory of entrepreneurial competency’, Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, 2, 51–72. Bird, B. (2002), ‘Learning entrepreneurship competencies: the self-directed learning approach’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 203–27. Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, New York: Wiley. Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), ‘Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs’, Academy of Management Journal, 23, 509–20. Busenitz, L.W. and J.B. Barney (1997), ‘Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision making’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9–30. Carland, J.W., F. Hoy, W.R. Boulton and J.C. Carland (1984), ‘Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: a conceptualization’, Academy of Management Review, 9, 354–9. Chandler, G.N. and S.H. Hanks (1994), ‘Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 77–89. Chandler G.N. and E. Jansen (1992), ‘The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance’, Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 223–36. Cox, L.W. (1996), ‘The goals and impact of educational interventions in the early stages of entrepreneur career development’, paper presented at the Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference (IntEnt96), 24–26 June, Arnhem and Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Cunningham, B. and J. Lischeron (1991), ‘Defining entrepreneurship’, Journal of Small Business Management, 29, 45–61. DeTienne, D.R. and G.N. Chandler (2004), ‘Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 242–57. Dubini, P. (1988), ‘Motivations and environment on business start-ups: some hints for public policies’, Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 11–26.


205

Dubini, P. and H. Aldrich (1991), ‘Personal extended networks are central to the entrepreneurial process’, Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 305–13. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments’, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–76. Garavan, T.N. and B. O’Cinneide (1994), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation – part 2’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 18, 13–21. Gatewood, E.J., K.G. Shaver and W.B. Gartner (1995), ‘A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation’, Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 371–91. Greve, A. and J.W. Salaff (2003), ‘Social networks and entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 1–22. Henry, C., F. Hill and C. Leitch (2005a), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I’, Education and Training, 47, 98–111. Henry, C., F. Hill and C. Leitch (2005b), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II’, Education and Training, 47, 158–69. Herron, L. and R. Robinson (1993), ‘The entrepreneur and venture performance’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 75–9. Hisrich, R. and M. Peters (2002), Entrepreneurship, 5th edn, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Honig, B. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business planning’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 258–73. Hood, J.N. and J.E. Young (1993), ‘Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas of development: a survey of top executives in successful entrepreneurial firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 115–35. Jamieson, I. (1984), ‘Schools and enterprise’, in A.G. Watts and P. Moran (eds), Education for Enterprise, Cambridge: CRAC. Koh, H.C. (1996), ‘Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: a study of Hong Kong MBA students’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 12–25. Kourilsky, M.L. and W. Walstad (2002), ‘The early environment and schooling of high-technology entrepreneurs: insights for entrepreneurship education’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 87–106. Kuratko, D.F. and R.M. Hodgetts (2004), Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice, 6th edn, Cincinnati, OH: Thomson, South-Western. Lindsay, N.J. and J. Craig (2002), ‘A framework for understanding opportunity recognition: entrepreneurs versus private equity financiers’, The Journal of Private Equity, 6, 13–24. Lumpkin, G.T. and G.G. Dess (1996), ‘Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance’, Academy of Management Review, 21, 135–72. Man T.W.Y. and T. Lau (2000), ‘Entrepreneurial competencies of SME owner/manager in the Hong Kong services sector: a qualitative analysis’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 8, 235–54. Mancuso, J.R. (1975), ‘The entrepreneurs’ quiz. in C.M. Baumback and J.R. Mancuso (eds), Entrepreneurship and Venture Management, Englewood, NJ; Van Nostrand. Mansfield, R.S., D.C. McClelland, L.M. Spencer and J. Santiago (1987), ‘The identification and assessment of competencies and other personal characteristics of entrepreneurs in developing countries’, Final Report: Project No. 936–5314, Entrepreneurship and Small Enterprise Development, Contract No. DAN-5314-C-003065-00, Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development; Boston, MA: McBer. McBer (1983), Entrepreneurship and Small Enterprise Development: Technical Proposal, Boston, MA: McBer and Company. McBer (1986), Entrepreneurship and Small Enterprise Development: Second Annual Report, report submitted to the United States Agency for International Development, Boston, MA; McBer and Company. McClelland, D.C. (1987), Human Motivation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miner, J.B., N.R. Smith and J.S. Bracker (1989), ‘Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the growth of technologically innovative firms’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 554–60. Mitton, D.G. (1989), ‘The compleat entrepreneur’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, 9–19. Onstenk, J. (2003), ‘Entrepreneurship and vocational education’ European Educational Research Journal, 2, 74–89. Pandey, J. and N.B. Tewary (1979), ‘Locus of control and achievement values of entrepreneurs’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 107–11. Ronstad, R. (1985), ‘The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning’, American Journal of Small Business, 10, 7–23. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shane, S. (2000), ‘Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities’, Organization Science, 11, 448–69. Shane, S. and S. Venkataraman (2000), ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–26.

206


Smith, K., M. Gannon, C. Grimm and T. Mitchell (1988), ‘Decision making behavior in smaller entrepreneurial and larger professionally managed firms’, Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 223–32. Spencer, L.M. and S.M. Spencer (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance, New York: John Wiley. Stoof, A. (2005), ‘Tools for the identification and description of competencies’, thesis dissertation, Open University of Nederland. Venkataraman, S. (1997), ‘The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective’, in J. Katz and R. Brockhaus (eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, 3, 119–38. Walker, R.M., F. Damanpour and C.N. Avellaneda (2007), ‘Combinative effects of innovation types on performance: a longitudinal study of public services’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 46, 1–6. Witt, P. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurs’ networks and the success of start-ups’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16, 391–412.

PART IV HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM INSTITUTIONAL CULTURE?

14 International entrepreneurship from emerging economies to developed economies: a novel theory for entrepreneurship education in China HongLing Jiang and Dong Bian

Introduction The research and education on international entrepreneurship (McDougall and Oviatt, 2000; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994) have experienced unprecedented development during the past two decades. However, what we observed is that more efforts have been dedicated to studies and teaching on how firms conduct entrepreneurial activities from developed economies (DE) to emerging economies (EE). Theoretically exploring and teaching on how firms originate from EE competitively establish their businesses in DE markets are rare. That is especially the case for firms that grow out of a fast-paced industry in China investing in the same industry of western developed countries with slow-paced industrial characteristics and sophisticated economic–social–political dynamics. The Chinese business context is culturally, socially and politically different from the western one. The industrialization processes of these two parties also exhibit distinct paths. These all imply that completely relying on theories and education models developed in western countries may not be a wise choice for Chinese firms and universities when they decide to go to the global market. Instead, Chinese firms and universities have to be innovative in international entrepreneurship management and teaching. It would be a smart move to try to recombine current knowledge with their own contextual characteristics to find their own ways of development. As an emerging country, China is undergoing a fundamental revolution. Some industries have been evolving so rapidly in the past three decades that the degrees of the dynamics of these industries become much higher than those of DE. In this chapter, we propose research questions for both scholars and practitioners: how a Chinese firm out of such an industry grows competitively in a developed country; what the status quo of the international entrepreneurship education in China is; and how to develop the international entrepreneurship education system to meet the challenges Chinese firms currently face. We first review the literature of international entrepreneurship and expose the imbalance between the research on international entrepreneurship from DE to EE and the research on international entrepreneurship from EE to DE. We then argue the need to explore new theoretical insights in the field of international entrepreneurship by investigating firms from a fast-paced business context in China to a slow-paced and complex business context in DE countries. As a result, we put forward a theoretical framework, aiming at opening a door for researchers in this niche and paving a way for future theory development. Coupled with the analysis of the Chinese entrepreneurship education market, we emphasize that China is not only short of theoretical development in the field of international entrepreneurship but also weak in the international entrepreneurship education. The lack of international entrepreneurship education, to some 209

210


extent, may greatly hold back Chinese firms’ internationalization processes. To continuously improve the international entrepreneurship educational situations in China, both research and scientific course design for academic programs in the universities should be interactively developed: the Chinese education system may have to dynamically absorb successful international entrepreneurship stories about Chinese firms and integrate them into an ongoing enriched theoretical framework; the produced theories in turn guide the entrepreneurial activities, closing the learning loop. In the end, we tentatively propose a road map for the development of this research and course design. We believe that this chapter could make the following three contributions. First, theories on firms coping with stable business dynamics (for example, punctuated equlibrium: Tushman and Romanelli, 1985) and turbulent business dynamics (for example, continous change: Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) are widely discussed. However, theories on how firms that have already achieved continuous change capabilities in a fast-paced industry in EE adapt to a slow-paced, complex business environment and establish sustainable competitive advantages in DE are seldom explored. Focusing on studies on this niche may enormously advance the field of international entrepreneurship. Second, based the above finding, we propose a theoretical framework as a research road map to fill in this academic void. This road map will work for both theory development and Chinese entrepreneurship education system improvement. Third, the gap between the current stage of theory development and the increasing demand for an applicable theory shows that there is a space to upgrade current international entrepreneurship education. Referring to the theoretical framework and the empirical studies on the status quo of the international entrepreneurship education in China, we put forward a scheme on what should be included in the Chinese education system and how these teaching materials or program design could contribute to the managerial practices. International entrepreneurship studies on EE and the need for theoretical development on internatonalization from EE to DE Studies on firms from DE entering EE International entrepreneurship studies on EE (Wright et al., 2005; Yamakawa et al., 2008) can be classified into three categories: research on firms from DE entering EE; research on firms from EE entering other EE; and research on firms from EE entering DE. Due to the imbalanced volume of the outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) between developed regions and developing areas, the demand for studies on firms from DE entering EE is huge. That makes the research on firms from DE entering EE become the mainstream in this field. Three kinds of topics dominating the theory evolution on firms from DE to EE: (1) the entry modes of multinational enterprises (MNEs) from DE to EE; (2) post-entry leadership; (3) knowledge transfer and reverse learning (firms from DE apply what they have learned from their operations in EE back to DE). Entry mode studies are very traditional in international business and entrepreneurship. However, the landscape is a bit complicated. For instance, Shane (1994) argued that the cultural differences in trust may be positively associated with the transaction costs. The best way to enter a foreign country is to establish wholly owned operations to avoid the costs caused by the cultural distance between home and host countries. Kogut and Singh (1988), on the other hand, suggested that, just due to the cultural distance, firms should establish

International entrepreneurship from emerging to developed economies

211

joint ventures instead of wholly owned enterprises to help bridge the cultural difference. That implies that joint ventures in fact may decrease the overall transaction costs in the process of internationalization. They found that, contrary to trying to avoid the short-term cost increase, the cultural exchange and institutionalization could facilitate corporate development in the long run. Reconciling the above seemingly contradictory results, Brouthers and Brouthers (2001) examined western firms investing in Central and Eastern Europe and concluded that international entry mode choices are determined by the level of investment risk. That is, investment risk moderates the relationship between entry mode selections and cultural distance. The degree of investment risk determines the entry mode choices according to certain degree of cultural distance. Concerning post-entry leadership, Luo and Peng (1999) unfolded a significant relationship between the intensity and diversity of host country experiences and subunit performance based on a survey of 108 MNE subunits operating in China. The results are intuitive: MNEs who have more experience in terms of environmental dynamism, complexity and hostility in EE will outperform those with less such experience. Similarly, Isobe et al. (2000) reported that the resource commitment to technology transfer and early entry have positive effects on DE firms’ performance in EE. Examining 660 Japanese MNCs’ subsidiaries in EE, Delios and Henisz (2000) intended to unfold the effects of organizational capabilities and expropriation hazards on the level of ownership. Uhlenbruck and De Castro (2000) took external factors such as host governments and country-specific risks of FDI into acquisition decisions in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). They put forward that the post-acquisition performance may not be positively related to the perceived fit between state-owned enterprise (SOE) targets in CEE and their western acquirers. In fact, this wrong perception could lead to a lot of merger and acquisition (M&A) failures. From knowledge and learning perspective, Hitt et al. (2000) investigated the effects of international diversity and international mode of entry on technological learning, the role of knowledge integration on the relationship between technological learning and international expansion and the impact of the technological learning on new ventures’ performance. Different from traditional believes, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) examined DE firms in EE from a ‘transnational management’ perspective, and found that DE firms learned from their EE market operations and transferred the newly acquired knowledge from EE to their home countries. In other words, firms’ internationalization from DE to EE could also contribute to their domestic market growth. Studies on firms from EE entering DE Referring to the studies on firms from DE entering EE, we find that research on the other two categories is not only rare but also hardly following the above research path. That is especially the case for studies on firms form EE entering DE (for example, Yamakawa et al., 2008) since EE-based firms may have competitive disadvantages when they are entering DE (Hu, 1995) and firms from EE that are capable of conducting overseas investment may first choose other EE countries as their destinations. In addition, fewer firms that grow out of EE in fact have the capabilities to expand their businesses onto the international market than firms from DE to EE. Although a lot of scholars noted that understanding firms from EE to other EE countries or DE countries is important (for example, Hoskisson et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2005), the much smaller sample size and

212


limited number of case studies on firms from EE entering DE make empirical research face a lot of challenges (Sapienza et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2006). It was found that the degree of success of EE-based firms in other EE countries, to some extent, is determined by the transferability of resources and capabilities of these firms to their host countries and the similarity of the institutional settings between home country and invested countries (Luo and Peng, 1999). That is why most firms internationalize first in neighboring countries since they are culturally and industrially similar to the situations in their home countries and it is easier to transfer the previously acquired capabilities. However, when firms explore international businesses from EE to DE, the institutional distance between home and host countries may be very big. That makes the resources and capabilities difficult to be directly transferred to host countries. Scholars in this case move from studying entry modes, post-entry leadership and learning to understand appropriate organizational forms. An appropriate organizational form design in fact may facilitate the corporate entry process, organizational learning and be conducive to building up sustainable competitive advantages in a new environment. For example, Keister (1998) and Chang and Hong (2000) found that EE-based firms, who can skillfully manage the paradoxes between decentralization and centralization and diversification and interdependence among business groups, will be more competitive than those who diversify unrelated products (Yiu et al., 2004). Evidence could be also found in the internationalization processes of South Korean firms (Chang and Hong, 2000; Lee and Beamish, 1995), Thailand companies (Pananond and Zeithaml, 1998) and firms from other developing countries like China (Buckley et al., 2007), Brazil, Chile and Mexico (Aulakh et al., 2000). Understanding firms from EE entering DE is crucial for development of the field. The difference in institutions (Scott, 1995) determines that the capabilities or capacity developed in EE may be very specific to the EE context and not totally applicable to DE. Instead of exploitation of current capabilities to establish competitive advantages in other EE countries due to the contextual similarity, EE-based firms entering DE may have to explore new resources and capabilities (Cantwell, 1992; Hoskisson et al., 2004) to deal with unfamiliar and complicated business environments. Therefore, how to transform the acquired capabilities in EE and effectively apply the newly transformed capabilities in DE becomes the key issue and may greatly complement the literature dominated by studies on firms from DE entering EE. May et al.’s (2000) research exactly reflected the argument we put forward above. Investigating the contexts of Russia, they argued that ‘empirical testing Western models of organization–environment relations in countries with highly constrained, transitional environments is an important step in the development of both theory and practice’. Additionally, knowledge assimilated from DE contributes not only to enabling capabilities transformation (Frost et al., 2002) in DE, but also to sustaining those firms’ competitiveness back in their home countries (Dawar and Frost, 1999). That is, on the one hand, capabilities adaptation will play an important role in helping the firms from EE entering DE to establish sustainable competitive advantages and compete with incumbent industrial leaders in DE. On the other hand, the learning processes in DE benefit firms in both contexts, making them capable of handling different business dynamics with various degrees and characteristics. Acquiring new capabilities and managing a capability portfolio in different contexts are obviously different from absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) or dynamic capabilities (Teece and Pisano, 1994), which usually refers to capability or competence renewal in


213

one business context as the industry evolves. International entrepreneurship from EE entering DE may require another organizational capability. Studies on organizational adaptation from a fast-paced industry in EE to the slow-paced industry in DE The literature of strategic organizational change shows two interesting fields: organizational adaptation in stable business environments and organizational adaption in fastpaced business environments. When the environments are not changing that fast, it is not necessary for organizations to conduct frequent changes. Doing so will incur more transaction costs. On the contrary, periodically reorganizing to realign a firm’s business with that of the industrial dynamics will be fair enough to adapt to the environmental changes. That is what has been called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ (for example, Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). When the environments go turbulent and the changes are so frequent and rapid that periodical reorganization can not make firms ‘dance’ roughly in line with the rhythm of the industrial dynamics, punctuated equilibrium may not work. Firms are suggested to continuously renew their competence (dynamic capabilities: for example, Teece and Pisano 1994), set up an efficient mechanism to absorb external knowledge, turn them into their own knowledge and materialize them to commercial ends (absorptive capacity: for example, Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), and semi-structure and keep the organization real-time ready for small-stepped changes (continuous change: Brown and Eiseinhardt, 1997). However, carefully reviewing the literature, we find that an important part of research has been neglected. That is how a firm that grows out of a fast-paced business environment adapts to an unfamiliar, slow-paced business environment in the same industry. And this is especially the situation for Chinese business. As more firms become competitive in the Chinese domestic market, mostly likely they will base their businesses in China to explore the overseas markets. Except for internationalizing to other EE countries, studies on how to enter the same slow-paced developed industries in western countries are academically and managerially meaningful. In general, scholars focused more on research about firms from DE entering EE and firms from EE entering other EE than firms from EE entering DE in the literature of international entrepreneurship. Studies on EE-based firms’ internationalization in DE are meaningful and can greatly advance the field. It may provide us another angle to look at strategy formulation and implementation and capability acquisition and portfolio management. Echoing some of the students who are interested in the international entrepreneurship on EE (for example, Yamakawa et al., 2008), we think it is an attractive research direction. Coupled with the knowledge of international entrepreneurship from DE to EE, exploring how firms from EE entering DE establish capabilities in DE and studying how they adapt to the local markets, achieve and sustain competitive advantages may help map out a complete landscape of international entrepreneurship studies. The theoretical framework on international entrepreneurship from EE to DE and its implication for future studies From the literature review, we learn that theories on international entrepreneurship from DE to EE are well established. In other words, it can be easier for firms to utilize

214


academic as well as experiential resources to conduct business activities in EE. Doing business the other way around will be much challenging. More competitive and experienced firms exist in DE than in EE. Very little knowledge could be shared among EE entrepreneurs due to the limited number of EE firms exploring DE markets and few scholars actually focusing studies on this niche. To build up sustainable competitive advantages from EE to DE, firms have to cope with different ‘rules of the game’, while, at the same time, they have to pay attention to pursuing an appropriate development speed. Following the path of DE firms may make them fall behind the development of DE firms in the long run. Firms growing out of a fast-paced EE to explore business opportunities in slow-paced, unfamiliar markets in DE, have to be innovative. Because the amount of knowledge that is unfamiliar to EE firms is huge and firms must search for and assimilate them efficiently to compete with incumbent competitors, they may have to construct new knowledge search mechanisms to include the large batch of unfamiliar information and new organizational forms to quickly facilitate the acquisition, assimilation and commercial-end materialization processes of the newly absorbed knowledge. Kuwada (1998) differentiated knowledge into two groups: business-level knowledge and corporate-level knowledge. Business-level knowledge refers to know-how, ‘technological knowledge about products, manufacturing process, knowledge of how to defeat or coexist and prosper with competitors, beliefs about patterns and changing trends of consumer behavior, and knowledge about gaining important resources’ (Kuwada, 1998, p. 720). Corporate-level knowledge is more tacit and non-technological. It is about procedural routines and underlying basic assumptions. Therefore, firms not only have to search and transform themselves to accommodate knowledge from the new environment but also must be skillful in dealing with different kinds of thus absorbed knowledge. First, no matter that firms from a fast-paced EE to a slow-paced EE intend to experience organic growth or M&A, they may have to face how to transform their current capabilities acquired from home countries, establish new environment-specific capabilities and integrate them into a corporate capability portfolio (business-level). Second, continuously changing core routines, tacit rules and basic assumptions is a must. Firms have to develop a capability to conduct efficient institutionalization processes including routine reconstruction, power redistribution and culture integration in the new environment to assist business-level knowledge absorption. In general, we think that knowledge search mechanism and destructive reorganization, corporate capability portfolio management and efficient institutionalization are the three key elements in building sustainable competitive advantages in DE when a firm growing out of a fast-paced EE business environment develops a slow-paced DE market (shown in Figure 14.1). Knowledge search mechanism and destructive reorganization is about new organizational forms. It has no direct relationship with overall corporate performance but is an antecedent for both business-level and corporate-level knowledge absorption. The introduced knowledge as stimuli encourages interactions among agents, which functions on transformation of both business-level knowledge and corporate knowledge bases. Knowledge structure, contents, evaluation system and knowledge acquisition, assimilation and materialization routines will accordingly evolve, leading to results on corporate overall performance.

International entrepreneurship from emerging to developed economies Business-level knowledge: Corporate capability portfolio management Knowledge search mechanism and destructive reorganization Corporate-level knowledge: Efficient institutionalization

Figure 14.1

215

Corporate overall performance from a fast-paced business environment to a slow-paced business environment

Three key elements in building sustainable competitive advantages for international entrepreneurship from EE to DE

Chinese entrepreneurship education and international entrepreneurship education in China SMEs going global and entrepreneurship education in China During the past three decades, we observed a growing number of small businesses conducting international businesses in China. More and more small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) intend to sell their products to the overseas market. Since the number of Chinese SMEs accounts for more than 90 per cent of the Chinese firm population, SMEs are playing considerable roles in the Chinese economy. In the post to 1978, the growth of Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 8–10 per cent per annum, outpacing the performance of most other economies in the world from 1980 to 2002. At cumulative rates, the Chinese GDP grew more than twelvefold during this period. Remarkably, as of 1999, there were more than 33 million registered SMEs, accounting for 99 per cent of all economically active units in China. The small and medium-sized enterprises, composed of collective enterprises, cooperatives, individually owned businesses, private companies, and foreign joint venture lead the growth of Chinese economy (Gibb and Li, 2003; Li, 2002). Evidence has shown that in the 1990s SMEs contributed 76.6 per cent of the additional GDP and 60 per cent of total exports amounting $150 billion (Wei, 2001). Job creation in the SME sector was impressive among college graduates. There was a net increase of 1.3 million private enterprises, which created 5.2 million new jobs cumulatively during 1996–99. Furthermore, SMEs are not only very important to China’s economy in maintaining market competition, creating job opportunities, increasing fiscal income, promoting technology innovation and commercialization, and initiating further entrepreneurship, but also are major players in China’s ‘go global’ strategy. To meet the demands of Chinese firms going global, educational institutions have an important part to play (Clarke, 1999). There appears to exist a consensus that entrepreneurship education and training has a major role to play in the development of entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities and related skills (European Commission, 2002). Evidence from a variety of sources seems to suggest that entrepreneurship courses is positive to enhance the intention of college students to create business (Carter and Collinson, 1999; Galloway and Brown, 2002; Ibrahim and Soufani, 2002; Klofsten, 2000; Kolvereid and Moen, 1997), and the number of educational institutions providing entrepreneurial

216


training programs at different levels has increased by more than 1500 since the first entrepreneurship course was taught at Harvard in 1947. However, the success of the Chinese economy over the past two decades has been widely attributed to releasing the entrepreneurial spirit and endeavors in China, but the phenomenal growth was achieved under circumstances in which entrepreneurship education lingered in its formative stages (Li, 2002). In China, entrepreneurship education is a relatively new concept to educational institutions. Nevertheless, over the past few years, this concept has been well received. Initially, interest in entrepreneurial education resulted from student business plan competitions in a small number of innovative universities and later evolved with selective topics in the form of seminars, such as new venture management and entrepreneurship financing. The Ministry of Education, in 2001, announced that China would select several universities to design and teach entrepreneurship at the undergraduate level, which represented the official recognition of entrepreneurship as a valuable course in the Chinese education system. Business plan and pilot entrepreneurship education scheme Unlike the introduction of employment education into the Chinese education system, entrepreneurship education as a new approach of disseminating knowledge and skills for business creation is really conductive to improving the quality of students. It provides a platform for both students and experienced businessmen to learn and interact. Tsinghua University in Beijing was the first university that launched the Student Business Plan Competition and later this event became the largest of its kind in China. It had been attracting considerable interest from both college students and local businesses since 1998. The main objective in this period was to bring together the students and encourage them to create ventures or run their own research and development (R&D) projects. As an effective tool of entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities, the business plan competition is a new way of obtaining practical knowledge compared with sitting and listening to professors in the old education system. Students usually responded to this novelty with remarkable enthusiasm. A survey by Shanghai-based Fudan University showed that 65 per cent of the 500 students who answered the questionnaires think that they could learn a lot by running their own businesses (source: Shanghai Association of Promoting Employment of College Graduates). With the new education being well received, a nation-wide college graduate business plan competition was launched in 2000. Five hundred and forty-two business plans were submitted from 244 participating universities across China (source: the Ministry of Education). The six successful finalists were awarded with venture capital investments of over $70 million from large companies and venture capitalists. With the increasing demands of new modules of business venturing in entrepreneurial education, the Ministry of Education has decided to launch a pilot scheme in ten selected universities across China in order to encourage entrepreneurship education at undergraduate level. Those selected universities are Tsinghua University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Renmin University of China, Beijing Aerospace University, Heilongjiang University, Nanjing University, Nanjing Economics College, Wuhan University, Xi’an Jiao Tong University, and Northwestern Industrial University. As a symbol or benchmark, the pilot scheme is regarded as a fundamental reform of the higher education system in China, which aims at introducing entrepreneurial skills into the concept of


217

individual competence for both job hunting and business creation. Gradually, entrepreneurship education is perceived as an integral part of improving competence and capability by students and universities. For example, Renmin University of China adopts a personal quality development approach as its entrepreneurship education model; Beijing Aerospace University is illustrative of entrepreneurship education as a business venturing skills development approach; and an awareness-raising and skills development approach, was the approach chosen by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Among the selected universities, Shanghai Jiao Tong University has built up its strength in science and technology for more than 150 years. Based on this perceived competitive advantage, the university introduced entrepreneurship education by teaching how to work out professional business plans, finance and launch R&D-based projects, and to raise awareness of self-employment as an alternative option through the commercialization of R&D outcomes. The university also organized a student business plan competition and set up innovation funds to support student business venturing activities. The university also initiated a three-credit curriculum named ‘entrepreneurship and innovativeness’ for undergraduate students, which was very entrepreneurial in the Chinese education system. The course lasts for 20 weeks. Small groups of students perceived as companies start the program by creating their business plans under the supervision of more than 30 professors from Antai College of Economics and Management. Famous entrepreneurs, consultants and professors lecture on selected topics and participate in various forums to share their real-life stories of entrepreneurship. More than 800 undergraduate students join this program each year. Two groups’ business plans won RMB 600 000 (around 60 000 euro). They will start their businesses with this installment investment. As the pilot initiative developed successfully, there is hope that entrepreneurship education will be formally introduced and promoted on a wider scale. From 2006, the Organization Department of Central Committee, the Publicity Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC), and the Ministry of Education, with the other 14 Central Departments united to make a policy, which offered various supports from local governments to self-employment of graduates. The preferential policy includes providing small loans, tax reduction, tax exemption, special finance support, developing entrepreneurial services, entrepreneurial education and so on. As the biggest economic center in China and home to around 60 public and private colleges and universities, Shanghai is leading the promotion of entrepreneurship education in China. Since 2006, the Shanghai Municipal Government have allocated RMB100 million (100 000 euro) each year to establish the Shanghai Collegiate Student Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Foundation, which supports students to start up their businesses. In 2007, 132 start-up businesses were created by college students with support from the foundation (Shanghai Association of Promoting Employment of College Graduates). More and more students were encouraged by those preferential policies and financial support, and got involved in entrepreneurship education with increasing enthusiasm. Challenges of international entrepreneurial education in China As a part of entrepreneurship education, international entrepreneurship education aims at improving the capability of students to be creative and good at recognizing business opportunities in the global environment. In comparison with the entrepreneurship

218

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Number of graduates in past 10 years (unit: million)

6 4.78

5 4.13

4 3.26

3 2 1

0.86

0.902

1998

1999

1.008 1.104

1.42

1.99

2.54

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Quantity of graduates Source:

Ministry of Education, PRC.

Figure 14.2

Increasing number of Chinese graduates during 1998–2007

education in developed economies, Chinese international entrepreneurial education is facing both internal and external challenges. Internal challenges: employment pressure The rapid expansion of universities increased the number of graduates. Every year, 10 million graduates join the labor market in search of available positions (shown in Figure 14.2). It follows that, on the one hand, the availability of well-trained human resources became a favorable condition that could sustain the rapid growth of the national economy. However, on the other hand, the large number of graduates injected into the job market also created a lot of pressure and social problems. The competition for popular jobs among graduates became fierce after 2003. In 2004, 2.8 million students graduated from institutions of higher education, of whom 73 per cent could have obtained jobs in the same year. In 2005, the number of graduates increased by 21 per cent, supplying 3.4 million new graduates to the labor market. In 2006, 4.13 million students graduated from universities and colleges, 30 per cent of whom failed to get employment that year. In 2007, 1.2 million students were jobless on graduation, coupled with 4.95 million students graduating in 2007. This amounted to 6 million students injected into the labor market to search for jobs in 2007. The increasing numbers of graduates entering the labor market is thus a big challenge for not only tackling the already sizable unemployed and underemployed population, but also absorbing the new entrants into the labor market. Therefore, self-employment and small enterprise promotion are now high on the national agenda, and are expected to create alternative channels for employment. A survey showed that the SME sector has been the major employment channel for graduates, with more than 50 per cent employed in SMEs and private sector enterprises (source: the Ministry of Education). Since March 2005, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Education have jointly launched an Internet-based job fair for university graduates to help them find jobs in SMEs, with the expectation that the graduates improve their technical and managerial capabilities before they graduated from universities, which would contribute to SMEs’ business development immediately after they entered the job market.


219

External challenges: demands of acquiring entrepreneurial capabilities as SMEs go global from EE to DE In Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Shanghai and Anhui as well as other eastern coastal provinces and regions, private businesses and SMEs have grown rapidly during the past three decades. More and more firms are involved in international businesses via import and export, original equipment manufacturing (OEM) and so on. Some even try to set up overseas representative offices, branch companies or factories in Europe or the USA to promote their own brands. In terms of outward foreign direct investment (OFDI), these organizations have become increasingly important to Chinese business. Therefore, how Chinese SMEs develop the international market is crucial for China in the future. Except for providing enough financial and policy support, the quality of people is definitely the core issue. China has to have a strategy on international entrepreneurship education. As Chinese business goes through domestic market building to exploring external business opportunities, we find a great gap between the huge demand for international development and the shortage of relevant-qualified people with international operation experiences. Entrepreneurial capabilities to absorb business knowledge and skills, recognize opportunities, and create business form EE to DE heavily rely on an efficient education system. Chinese educational institutions are weak not only in the theoretical development of international entrepreneurship but also on scientific design of the courses to help students acquire explicit as well as tacit knowledge in international entrepreneurship education. Martin Carnoy (2000) points out that globalization enters the education sector on an ideological wave, and its effects on education are largely a product of that financially driven, free market ideology, not a clear conception for improving education. Although China tries to make progress in entrepreneurship education by utilizing a business plan competition and a pilot scheme, these are far away from a systematic education design. The importance of the education system to national economic growth is not fully reflected in the educational activities. Entrepreneurship education is under immense pressure to transform their roles to meet the demands of this rapid socio-economic environment changes in China. International entrepreneurship curriculum design for Chinese SMEs going global from EE to DE In comparison with the increasing demand for international entrepreneurship capabilities, the existing curriculum about entrepreneurship is far from supportive to sustain SMEs’ development. Courses concerning international entrepreneurship are rare. If they do exist in some universities, the program is simply composed of knowledge from international business, international trade, international finance, and so on. And, what has been taught are almost always the theories and cases on international expansion from DE to EE. Creating business in emerging markets is quite different from that in DE markets. Also, some courses on entrepreneurship are programmed in Chinese executive management education, focusing on skills and knowledge of business venturing. Additionally, some courses on entrepreneurship are scattered among Chinese executive management education, focus on skills and knowledge of business venturing in mutual markets. For example, entrepreneurship courses for MBA and EMBA programs in Shanghai Jiao Tong University comprise lectures delivered by professors, economist and entrepreneurs without credits. In the China Europe International Business School

220


(CEIBS), domestic economists and overseas professors organize a two-day selective entrepreneurship course with business simulation software introduced from Babson College for EMBA program each academic year. More educational institutions realize that management education could disintegrate due to the lack of entrepreneurship education, but have not established a curriculum for entrepreneurship education in the degree education system in China. In general, entrepreneurship education in China is neither integrated into the curriculum nor part of a coherent framework. Initiatives are often isolated, taken by individual institutions. Entrepreneurship is more likely to be taught as a separate subject or seen as an extra-curricular activity (Li et al., 2003). Conducting competitive international entrepreneurship activities in a new market from EE to DE is definitely not easy. Chinese SMEs need to build up capabilities to transform current capabilities cultivated in EE markets, simultaneously manage a portfolio of capabilities in both EE and DE countries and pursue business opportunities to compete against competitors in these two areas. Capability transformation and establishment in turn requires long-term commitment to accumulate relevant knowledge and the ability to learn from doing. Therefore, a scientific curriculum design should focus on three elements (organizational design, tacit knowledge management and explicit knowledge transfer) and innovatively find efficient teaching tools to transfer those kinds of knowledge to the students. Organizational design Organization forms of firms from a fast-paced business environment to a slow-paced business environment will be different. Therefore, cases about how Chinese firms successfully or unsuccessfully organize to accommodate external market information and effectively utilize the information to change the processes in the operations are important materials. Detailed cases may include firms applying their current organizational structures to develop the European and/or US markets, firms adapting their current organizational structures to the local markets and firms adopting new organizational structures to meet the challenges in the new environment. Through comparison, the advantages and disadvantages of each kind of structure are taught to the students, which will instigate discussion on how to design an organization when a firm moves from a fast-paced business environment to a slow-paced, unfamiliar, complicated market. Tacit knowledge management Knowledge can be differentiated as tacit knowledge or explicit knowledge. Similar to corporate-level knowledge we mentioned before, tacit knowledge is a kind of knowledge that cannot be taught directly in entrepreneurship education. So, in this part of education, designers should provide students with a platform for practice. Interaction with entrepreneurs, internship in real business contexts, simulations, formulating and implementing business plans and participation in pilot programs will give them chances to activate the decoding processes. Through these activities, students could learn the underlying assumptions, tacit behaviors and the ‘rules of the game’. Obtaining this knowledge and learning how to efficiently get it in a new environment may make it easier for students to understand how to design an organization and absorb explicit knowledge from a distinct market.


221

Explicit knowledge transfer Explicit knowledge refers to that part of knowledge which can be taught or transferred. Ensuring the quality of teaching on the course is one thing. The other is that, since the knowledge is explicit to everyone attending the program or entrepreneurs, and managers without being enrolled in the program, the course should focus not only on content but also on how to frame or structure the knowledge. In other words, how to acquire the knowledge and utilize it for commercial ends is important. So, in this part of the course, ongoing real business cases and simulations are crucial in training students to find relevant knowledge and structure it to quickly and successfully respond to a circumstance in the market. In general, based on the analysis of the Chinese entrepreneurship education market and the proposed theoretical framework, we tentatively and entrepreneurially put forward several points on how to strategically design an international entrepreneurship course in China. We would rather consider the course design as a piece of modest suggestion than a very scientific plan. The elements proposed here aim at opening a door for future studies. Discussion and conclusion International entrepreneurship research and education in China is a very interesting topic. That is not simply because the academic field is relatively new but because the international entrepreneurship studies on how firms originating from a fast-paced business context competitively develop a slow-paced, unfamiliar market can significantly advance the field development. As more emerging countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia play important roles in the international market, how the firms from these fastpaced countries explore business opportunities and sustain their competitive advantages in relatively slow-paced developed countries becomes managerially and academically meaningful. This is especially the case for China. How Chinese firms enter European markets and build up competitive advantages, what the status quo of international entrepreneurship education is and how to conduct research and develop courses to sustain Chinese international entrepreneurial activities and education are enormously important for the Chinese economy. In this chapter, we opened the topic by reviewing the literature of international entrepreneurship. We find that more scholars focus their researches on international entrepreneurship from DE to EE, while the other way around draws much less attention. In addition, a firm usually conducts periodical reorganizations (punctuated equilibrium per se) when it adapts to a relatively slow business context. When the dynamics of the industry are becoming turbulent or fast paced, establishing dynamic capabilities, conducting continuous change and building up absorptive capacity are expected to give the firm sustainable competitive advantages. However, the niche of firms from a fast-paced context developing in a slow-paced business environment lacks investigation. Putting this research into the field will definitely complement the current knowledge base and help to map out the whole research landscape. Furthermore, according to the characteristics of this niche, we propose a theoretical framework. We believe that a firm should pay attention to developing three capabilities (knowledge search mechanism and destructive reorganization, corporate capability portfolio management and efficient institutionalization) in its new environment. International entrepreneurship from a fast-paced EE to a

222


slow-paced DE need to experience revolutionary instead of incremental development. This requires firms to nurture new capabilities in the new environment. Entrepreneurship education in China is relatively new compared with other academic fields. With increasing number of firms emerging in the domestic market, the whole education system for entrepreneurship seems to function not that well to sustain those firms’ development. The demand is huge, while the courses taught in various programs are old and not fitted to the managerial requirements. Additionally, most of the theories and cases are about how western companies develop domestic markets or enter other DE or EE countries. Quite a lot of students question these issues and ask whether the education is really valuable and conducive to their future business practices. International entrepreneurship education is rare in the field. A limited number of Chinese companies are entrepreneurially entering those slow-paced developed countries and very few scholars are actually paying attention to this academic niche, which make the knowledge sharing even worse. We propose the theoretical framework as the guide for both research and international entrepreneurship program design. Students in this niche should not only focus on learning knowledge search mechanism and destructive reorganization, corporate capability portfolio management and efficient institutionalization capability development, but also need to understand the means of acquiring that tacit knowledge, utilizing explicit knowledge to efficiently construct corporate competitive advantages, and formulating an appropriate organizational structure. The international entrepreneurship program itself is an experiment. Learning the basic assumption of the program design in fact will help students benefit from participation. Three contributions are made in this chapter. First, we unveil a less developed academic niche, that is, international entrepreneurship from a fast-paced EE to a slow-paced DE. Studies on how firms from a fast-paced EE establish sustainable competitive advantages in slow-paced DE countries complement the current literature and may enormously advance the field of international entrepreneurship. Second, we stress that firms in this case should pay attention to build up three capabilities (knowledge search mechanism and destructive reorganization, corporate capability portfolio management and efficient institutionalization) in DE. The theoretical framework works as a research road map to fill this academic void as well as a guide for international entrepreneurship education development. Third, referring to the theoretical framework and empirical studies on the status quo of international entrepreneurship education in China, we put forward a scheme as to what should be included in the Chinese education system and how these teaching materials or program design could contribute to the managerial practices. This is obviously important for Chinese international entrepreneurship education programs’ design and improvement. References Aulakh, P., M. Kotabe and H. Teegen (2000), ‘Export strategies and performance of firms from emerging economies: evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 342–61. Bartlett, C. and S. Ghoshal (1989), Managing Across Borders: The Translational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Brouthers, K.D. and L.E. Brouthers (2001), ‘Explaining the national distance paradox’, Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 177–89. Brown, S.L. and K.M. Eisenhardt (1997), ‘The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and timepaced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.


223

Buckley, P.J., L.J. Clegg, A.R. Cross, X. Liu H. Voss and P. Zheng (2007), ‘The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment’, Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (4), 499. Cantwell, J. (1992), ‘The theory of technological competence and its application to international production’, in D. McFeteridge (ed.), Foreign Investment, Technology and Economic Growth, Calgary: University of Calgary Press, pp. 33–67. Carnoy, M. (2000), Sustaining the New Economy in the Information Age: Reflections on our Changing World, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Carter, S. and E. Collinson (1999), ‘Entrepreneurial education: alumni perception of the role of higher education institutions’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 6 (3), 229–39. Chang, S. and J. Hong (2000), ‘Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: intragroup resources sharing and internal business transaction’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 429–48. Clarke, T. (1999), ‘Economic growth, institutional development and personal freedom: the educational needs of China’, Education 1 Training, 41 (6/7), 336–43. Cohen, W. and D.A. Levinthal (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and participation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–52. Dawar, N. and T. Frost (1999), ‘Competing with giants: survival strategies for local companies in emerging markets’, Harvard Business Review, March–April, 119–29. Delios, A. and W. Henisz (2000), ‘Japanese firms’ investment strategies in emerging economies’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 305–23. European Commission (2002), Education and Training for Entrepreneurship, Brussels: European Commission. Frost, T.S., J. Birkinshaw and P. Ensign (2002), ‘Centers of excellence in multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal, 23, 997–1018. Galloway, L. and W. Brown (2002), ‘Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms?’, Education 1 Training, 44 (8/9), 398–405. Gibb, A. and J. Li (2003), ‘Organising for enterprise in China: what can be learned from the Chinese micro, small and medium enterprise development experience?’, Future, 35, 403–21. Hitt, M., M.T. Dacin, E. Levitas, J.-L. Arregle, and A. Borza (2000), ‘Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts, resource-based and organizational learning perspectives, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 449–67. Hoskisson, R.E., L. Eden, C.M. Lau and M. Wright (2000), ‘Strategy in emerging economies’, Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 249–67. Hoskisson, R.E., H. Kim, R.E. White and L. Tihanyi (2004), ‘A framework for understanding international diversification by business groups from emerging economies’, in M.A. Hitt and J.L.C. Cheng (eds), Theories of the Multinational Enterprise: Diversity, Complexity, and Relevance, Advances in International Management, vol. 16, Oxford: Elsevier/JAI Press, pp. 137–63. Hu, Y.-S. (1995), ‘The international transferability of the firm’s advantages’, California Management Review, 37 (4), 73–88. Ibrahim, A.B., and K. Soufani (2002), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: a critical assessment’, Education 1 Training, 44 (8/9), 421–30. Isobe, T., S. Makino and D.B. Montgomery (2000), ‘Resource commitment, entry timing, and market performance of foreign direct investments in emerging economies: the case of Japanese international joint ventures in China’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 468–84. Keister, L. (1998), ‘Social ties and the formation of Chinese business groups’ Sociological Analysis, 1 (2), 99–117. Klofsten, M. (2000), ‘Training entrepreneurship at universities: a Swedish case’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 24 (6), 337–44. Kogut, B. and H. Singh (1988), ‘The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode’, Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (3), 411–32. Kolvereid, L. and Ø. Moen (1997), ‘Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21 (4), 154–60. Kuwada, K. (1998), ‘Strategic learning: the continuous side of discontinuous strategic change’, Organization Science, 6, 719–36. Lee, C. and P. Beamish (1995), ‘The characteristics and performance of Korean joint ventures in LDCs’, Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 637–54. Li, J. (2002), Financing China’s Rural Enterprises, London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Li, J., Y.L. Zhang and H. Matlay (2003), ‘Entrepreneurship in China’, Education1Training, 45 (8/9), 495– 505. Luo, Y. and M. Peng (1999), ‘Learning to compete in a transitional economy: experience, environment and performance’, Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 269–95. May, R.C., W.H. Stewart Jr and R. Sweo (2000), ‘Environment scanning behaviour in a transnational economy: evidence from Russia’, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (3), 403–27.

224


McDougall, P.P. and B.M. Oviatt (2000), ‘International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths’, Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5), 909–24. Oviatt, B.M. and P.P. McDougall (1994), ‘Toward a theory of international new ventures’, Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45–64. Pananond, P. and C.P. Zeithaml (1998), ‘The international expansion process of MNEs from developing countries: a case study of Thailand’s CP Group’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 15, 163–84. Sapienza H.J., E. Autio, G. George and S.A. Zahra (2006), ‘A capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth’, Academy of Management Review, 31 (4), 914–33. Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shane, S.C. (1994), ‘The effect of national culture on the choice between licensing and direct foreign investment’, Strategic Management Journal, 15, 627–42. Teece, D. and G. Pisano (1994), ‘The dynamic capabilities firms: an introduction’, Industrial and Corporation Change, 3, 537–55. Tushman, M.L. and E. Romanelli (1985), ‘Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation’, in L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 7, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 171–222. Uhlenbruck, K. and J. De Castro (2000), ‘Foreign acquisitions in Central and Eastern Europe: outcomes of privatization in transitional economies’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 381–402. Wei, D. (2001), ‘The development of SMEs in the new century’, in N. Chen (ed.), SMEs in China: Development and Projection, Beijing: Mingzhu he Jiangshe Publisher (in Chinese). Wright, M., I. Filatotcher, R. Hoskisson and M. Peng (2005), ‘Strategy research in emerging economies: challenging the conventional wisdom’, Journal of Management Studies, 1, 1–33. Yamakawa, Y., M.W. Peng and D.L. Deeds (2008), ‘What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies?’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 59–82. Yiu, D., R.E. Hoskisson and Y. Lu (2004), ‘Corporate entrepreneurial intensity of Chinese firms: institutional effects of business groups’ social capital and control mechanisms and government legacy and policy’, working paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Zhou, K.Z., D.K. Tse and J.J. Li (2006), ‘Organizational changes in emerging economies: drivers and consequences’, Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 248–63.

15 Entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland: context, opportunities and challenges Thomas Garavan, Naomi Birdthistle, Barra Ó Cinnéide and Chris Collet

Introduction Entrepreneurship is considered central to economic growth. It is a major source of employment, innovation, product and service quality, competition and economic flexibility. The 2007 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (Reynolds et al., 2004) describes entrepreneurship as a ‘worldwide phenomenon that is on the increase’. The generation of the twenty-first century has been branded generation E, the most entrepreneurial since the Industrial Revolution (Kuratko, 2005). Ireland is no different in this respect. The GEM report highlighted that in Ireland 8.2 per cent of the adult population can be classified as early stage entrepreneurs and 9 per cent were classified as owner-managers of businesses older than 42 months. In 2007, approximately 306 000 people were involved in early stage entrepreneurial activity (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2008). The 2006 GEM report found that Ireland ranked seventh out of 22 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries on early stage entrepreneurship. It ranks third in the European Union in terms of overall entrepreneurial activity (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2007). Entrepreneurial activity is therefore strong in Ireland even though numerous reports highlighted that the Irish education system at second and third level is not conducive to the development of students’ entrepreneurial spirit and skills. Entrepreneurship education is considered to be a major agent for societal change. Not everyone will become an entrepreneur; however, all members of society need to be more entrepreneurial. This is echoed by Iredale (2002) who states that not everyone can be an entrepreneur but everyone can be enterprising. Ireland has a variety of tertiary entrepreneurship education programmes. However, the majority of these programmes have only emerged in the past decade. These programmes are designed to address a number of important objectives including: enhancing entrepreneurial behaviours and mindsets; building self-confidence, self-efficacy and leadership; enhancing creativity, innovation and the ability to think ‘out of the box’ to solve problems and skills in managing complexity and unpredictability. Entrepreneurship education in Ireland reflects a unique cultural, social, political and institutional history. It has emerged from a multilayered and complex context and includes: political and cultural characteristics, enterprise culture, economic history, national enterprise and entrepreneurship policy and the nature and structure of primary, secondary and higher education institutions (HEIs). The situation at primary and secondary education levels is significantly less robust. There is a lack of a coherent approach at these levels to the development of entrepreneurship capability. However, very few significant developments have taken place at the primary and secondary education levels to teach entrepreneurship in a coherent and comprehensive way. 225

226


At tertiary level, the number of specialist degrees and postgraduate programmes in entrepreneurship and enterprise has grown in the past ten years. Specialist modules on entrepreneurship and enterprise are increasingly included on non-business third-level education programmes. Garavan et al. (1997a) noted that the teaching of entrepreneurship and enterprise in Irish universities and colleges had encouraged more graduates to focus on business formation opportunities. The need to develop entrepreneurship was acknowledged as early as 1973. Fogarty (1973) in a classic study of Irish entrepreneurs found that they had a zest for education and training beyond basic schooling. By 2009, the Republic of Ireland had a total of 14 specialist postgraduate programmes in entrepreneurship. This compared to three in 1995. This proliferation of postgraduate entrepreneurship education programmes lends support to the view that certain aspects of entrepreneurship and enterprise can be taught (Feldman, 2001; Mahoney et al., 2002). The current supply of entrepreneurship education programmes differ both in terms of emphasis and pedagogy. Terms used include ‘international entrepreneurship’, ‘social enterprise’, ‘self-employment’, ‘venture creation’, ‘small business management’ and ‘employability’. Birdthistle (2008) suggests that Irish programmes at tertiary level utilize a mixture of approaches including classroom learning, experiential learning, and consultancy approaches. This diversity can be attributed to differences in education institution approaches, education philosophies and pedagogical assumptions (Garavan and Ó Cinnéide, 1994; Weaver, 1999). This chapter explores entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland. The Irish system of entrepreneurship can be described as a cooperative system in which the state plays an important role in both shaping enterprise and entrepreneurship policy and in influencing the design and delivery of entrepreneurship education programmes. This occurs through various funding and policy initiatives. Context is important because it helps to illuminate the way in which entrepreneurial education has evolved. The Irish context is multifaceted and it can be understood in a number of ways. It has in some cases provided support for, and acted as a source of strength for, entrepreneurship education. Particular historical events and policy decisions have reinforced awareness of entrepreneurship education. Finally, context provides a basis to more fully understand how entrepreneurship education has evolved and grown. We focus on five dimensions of context in this chapter. First, we consider the social and cultural context of entrepreneurship behaviour in Ireland and how this has shaped attitudes to entrepreneurship and the content of entrepreneurial and enterprise education programmes and modules. Second, we analyse the economic context and in particular the influence of economic policy on entrepreneurial activity. Third, we consider the national policy context. We analyse the role of national policy, development agencies policies, incentives for entrepreneurs and national policy initiatives on entrepreneurship education. Fourth, we explore the university and higher education (HE) context. This includes issues such as the role of education institutions in encouraging entrepreneurship, the commercialization of research and technology, and the interface between educational institutions and business. We finally discuss the tertiary programme context. This is particularly salient because there is little in terms of formal structures at primary and second-level education. This level of context highlights pedagogical and philosophical characteristics of entrepreneurship education programmes, the role of theory versus practice, student propensity and ability issues, together with the learning strategies used

Entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland

227

to teach entrepreneurship. The outputs of entrepreneurship education are discussed in terms of both graduate employability and graduate entrepreneurship. Ireland’s social and cultural context A holistic understanding of entrepreneurship education in Ireland suggests that approaches to education for entrepreneurship and enterprise are influenced and shaped by the wider Irish society and its unique culture and values. Some commentators take the view that national culture has diminished in significance in explaining entrepreneurship due to the emergence of globalization (Steemsma et al., 2000). However, the alternative view suggests that national cultural differences are significant for entrepreneurship (Carr and Harris, 2004). Intra-cultural differences are also highlighted; however, these differences are less significant in the Irish context given the small size of the country in both population and physical area. Sociocultural values are considered a key environmental variable affecting entrepreneurship activity and the nature of entrepreneurship education. The social and cultural context of entrepreneurship in Ireland can be traced as far back as the Irish Famine. The potato famine of 1845 to 1849 is considered a pivotal event in Irish history and culture from which the island of Ireland took some time to recover. It is arguable that this recovery did not take place until the last two decades of the twentieth century. Within a few years of the famine, the population of Ireland had declined from 8 million to less than 5 million, with 3 million having either starved to death or emigrated to the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. In the years following the famine, Gaelic remained the language of the majority of the population, while English was embraced by the more upwardly mobile. As a consequence of the major emigration that took place to the USA – Ireland faced West – America began to have a major influence and this was never more so than from the time that Ireland reopened its economy to foreign direct investment (FDI) in the early 1960s. A division of the island of Ireland, North and South took place in 1922, with Home Rule in both parts. The industrial North-East remained in the UK. This set up two factions in Ireland, with one side supporting those who signed the Treaty giving Home Rule to 26 of the 32 counties, and their adversaries who opposed all treaties other than that which would give the whole of the Island back to the Irish people. This resulted in a civil war which was so intense that it pitted brother against brother in many families. The new Cumann na nGaedheal government established in 1922 was in no position to change the policy direction of the newly formed home rule government. The most industrialized part of the island of Ireland, the North East, was cut off due to partition, however, the Republic did not recognize the importance of this fact for many decades. In the new semi-autonomous state, as much as half the workforce was employed in agriculture. A significant decline occurred in agricultural-related employment over the next 30 years; however, Ireland continued its laissez-faire policies largely inherited from Britain. The strong reliance on agriculture in the 1930s and 1940s explains why entrepreneurship was identifiable, at a fundamental level, with rural areas and farming family members who from an early age worked alongside their parents. They experienced at first hand the ups and downs of business. Rural families heard talk about prices, and the need to work to make ends meet. They experienced market trends at cattle and sheep

228


marts and made connections between cost and pricing at country markets in their local village and town. It is therefore no surprise that being a member of a farming family provided fertile ground for entrepreneurship. Indeed, the influence of a farming background can be seen in the background of a number of contemporary Irish entrepreneurs. These include Seán Quinn (Quinn Group), Martin Naughton (Glen Dimplex), Philip Lynch (IAWS), Denis Brosnan (Kerry Group), Brian McCarthy (Fexco) and Larry Goodman (beef industry magnate). Another strand of Irish history and culture not always acknowledged in understanding entrepreneurship concerns the role of religious institutions. While there is a tendency to equate entrepreneurs with wealthy individualistic people (usually men), religious orders had a major impact in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries given that as religion played a major role in Irish society. Irish parents took significant pride in having a priest or nun in the family. Given the poverty and poor living conditions that characterized Ireland after the famine, religious orders were important. The majority of the well-known religious orders were founded in Ireland in the nineteenth century. These included the Sisters of Charity, Loretto Sisters, Sisters of Mercy and Irish Christian Brothers. Luddy (1995) highlights that Catholic convent women had a major role in establishing schools, hospitals for the elderly, industrial schools and orphanages. These also included entrepreneurial ventures. A lace-making school run by the Presentation Sisters in Youghal employed 120 girls in 1890. In 1891 Sister Mary Agnes MoraghBernard set up a knitwear factory in Foxford. This remained in private hands until 1988. Many of the religious entrepreneurs to emerge in the later part of the twentieth century in Ireland were from rural areas. In the 1980s Monsignor James Horan (1911–85) established Knock Airport in 1982. He was described as a ‘mad man’ who wished to establish an airport in the middle of a bog. He continued with his vision and the inaugural flight took place in 1985. In 2009 the airport had almost 1 million passengers. Other examples of religious entrepreneurs include Father Harry Bohan, who established a Centre for Values-led Change and Father Peter McVerry who established hostels in the Dublin area for homeless teenage boys. Sister Stanislaus Kennedy founded Focus Ireland in 1985 to provide shelter, meals, advice and support for homeless people, and Sister Magdalene Fogarty established Clann Credo in 1996, a social investment fund to enable the establishment of community-focused enterprises. The so called ‘economic miracle’ which became known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’ had a long gestation period. In many ways it came about as a result of a conflux of many elements, including social and political events, the influence of rural entrepreneurship and religious institutions, fortitude, nationalism and luck. The status of the entrepreneur in Irish society is therefore not a miracle but the result of a young independent nation finding its feet after centuries of political control. Fitzsimons et al. (2004) have suggested that entrepreneurship has strong popular support in Ireland. The emergence of the Celtic Tiger resulted in entrepreneurs being perceived as ‘local heroes’ (Goodbody, 2002). Traditionally the picture was a different one. Cuddy and Evertsen (2004) suggested that the Irish traditionally considered failure to be a sign of incompetence and that Irish culture was characterized as both conservative and risk averse. Hisrich and Ó Cinnéide (1986) found a lack of respect for entrepreneurship in the 1980s. Entrepreneurial success was traditionally viewed in a negative way (Ardagh,


229

1997; de Pillis and Reardon, 2007). Irish culture traditionally found it difficult to deal with success. It tended to invite a sense of begrudgery and resentment. These negative attitudes have diminished. The GEM report in 2008 found that entrepreneurs now have a higher status throughout Ireland compared with many other developed countries, including the USA (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2008). The social values that surround entrepreneurship have changed in Ireland. The hero notion that is attached to entrepreneurs has in some ways changed in the past 20 years. The traditional story focused on individual achievement. Whelan and O’Gorman (2007) found increased awareness of the need for teamwork. Entrepreneurship is now more likely viewed as a combination of individual acts of innovation and the need to collaborate with others to achieve business goals. Entrepreneurship is increasingly viewed as something that anyone could pursue provided that the individual possesses the determination and focus to make the journey. Fitzsimons and O’Gorman (2007) found, for example, that entrepreneurship is increasingly considered an effective career choice. Successful entrepreneurs are held in high regard and stories of successful entrepreneurs are frequently reported in the media. Byrne and Bradley (2007) found that Irish entrepreneurs in successful ventures are open to change; however, the less successful entrepreneurs are high on ‘conservatism’. Irish managers in general tend to be more conservatively inclined than Irish entrepreneurs. Gender matters in Irish culture when it comes to entrepreneurship. The proportion of women who decide to become entrepreneurs in Ireland is considerably lower than is the case for men (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2007). Men are more likely to know a recent entrepreneur and are more likely to believe that they possess the skills and knowledge to start up a business. Men who believe that they possess the necessary competencies are significantly more likely to be early stage entrepreneurs. Females are more likely to be inhibited by ‘fear of failure’ and, as a result, are less likely to set up a business. In terms of entrepreneurial start-up, the divergence between men and women is very pronounced. However, on the issue of educational achievement they are similar. Men and women have different preferences in terms of the area of business in which they would like to establish an enterprise (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2007; O’Gorman and Terjesen, 2006). The GEM reports for 2006 and 2007 found that females are typically located in the services sector while males typically establish manufacturing companies and are located in the construction and technology sector. Table 15.1 summarizes some of the more interesting features of the cultural, economic and social contexts in the Republic of Ireland compared to a generic model. Hofstede’s (2001) work on national cultural differences highlights particular characteristics of Irish national culture that are significant in explaining entrepreneurial behaviour. Ireland is rated moderate on power distance. This characteristic may explain the variation in entrepreneurship behaviour. Mitchell et al. (2000) predicted that high power distance was a negative characteristic in terms of venture creation. Individuals from lower socio-economic categories may consider that it is only the elite who will engage in entrepreneurial activities. It is assumed that wealthy individuals have greater access to resources and experience. In contrast, Ardichvili and Gas Parishville (2003) found that high power distance was associated with more entrepreneurial activity. The research on power distance suggests that there should be less venture creation activity in Ireland. Ireland scores reasonably high on the cultural characteristic of individualism and in

230


Table 15.1

Characteristics of entrepreneurship in the Republic of Ireland: cultural, economic and social context

Characteristics

Republic of Ireland

Population stock

●

Educational processes

●

● ●

●

Socio-political context

●

● ●

● ●

Enterprise culture

● ●

● ● ●

Family support and savings

● ● ●

Large proportion of young people and older people. Strong interest in entrepreneurship amongst young people Primary and secondary school system does not support idea of ‘working for yourself’ Entrepreneurship focus is limited on many third-level programmes Entrepreneurship programmes are relatively fragmented at both second and tertiary levels Currently catching up compared to more advanced countries Strong cultural context, greatly influenced by location, i.e. rural enterprise and religious orders Entrepreneurs viewed as heroes and important individuals Cultural characteristics emphasize moderate to high individualism and power distance. More masculine culture but changing. Low on uncertainty avoidance Liberal political ethos; modern democracy Strong democratic institutions Irish economy becoming more knowledge based Emergence of indigenous companies with potential for growth Emergence of technology-based companies Major transformation of the business environment State support focused on ongoing creation of new entrepreneurshipled entities Families generally supportive of entrepreneurship Traditional focus on job security is still prevalent in many families Mother is a major influence on career and education decisions

Generic model ●

Youthful dynamism, vibrancy and motivation to start business

●

Blended approach to the development of technical expertise and entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship education is emphasized at all levels within the education system

●

●

●

● ●

● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ●

Strong liberal political system. Focus on diversity and willingness to take risks Cultural context that emphasizes high individualism, low uncertainty avoidance and masculine values are more supportive of entrepreneurship High power distance may be facilitative of entrepreneurship Strong emphasis on democracy in the political system Strong emphasis on enterprise Risk-taking is viewed as a good thing Strong level of new venture formation Emphasis on the promotion of entrepreneurial competencies in the education system Various policy measures designed to promote entrepreneurial activities Family support is all around Entrepreneurs are valued in the family structure Both parents are supportive of individual’s career Strong emphasis on savings. Easy access to savings

Entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland Table 15.1

231

(continued)

Characteristics

Republic of Ireland ●

Financial availability

Industry/firms structure

●

●

● ●

Industrial relations system

● ●

Overall business environment

● ● ●

Limited emphasis on saving, however this was traditionally not the case. Frequent reliance on the family as a source of funds for the new venture Limited availability of small business credit. Some initiatives by government to increase credit flow to small businesses Large proportion of micro, small and medium-sized firms. Significant number of multinational corporations (MNCs) Emergence of Irish MNC in last ten years Large number of service firms Strong emphasis on social partnership Social partners including trade unions, government and employers regulated the industrial relations (IR) system. Social partnership recently under threat Increasingly conducive to enterprise and entrepreneurship Less reliance on MNC for growth in the future Major influence in the EU

Generic model

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

Special schemes for small business finance Willingness of banking system to lend to small businesses and new venture start-ups Strong emphasis on private-led enterprise Good balance of indigenous and multinational enterprises

Consensual approach to managing the employment relationship Legal regulation of key areas of the employment relationship

Strong emphasis on competitiveness and globalization Blending of natural comparative advantage with competitive advantage

this respect is similar to the UK and Canada. Individual entrepreneurial activity is associated with individualistic cultures, whereas corporate entrepreneurship is associated with more collectivist cultures (Tiessen, 1997). This suggests that in the case of Ireland there is more freedom for individual action, greater independence and motivation to achieve. Davidson and Wiklund (1997) suggest that individualistic cultures will be more likely to encourage entrepreneurship because individuals are more likely to demonstrate more personal confidence, initiative and courage. In masculine cultures individuals are taught to value strong and independent heroes (Steemsma et al., 2000). Masculine cultures also encourage and value assertiveness and view failure as something that is acceptable. Ardichvili and Gas Parishville (2003) found more entrepreneurial behaviour in moderately masculine societies. Ireland should be strong on entrepreneurial activity. Ireland has low uncertainty avoidance. Irish culture is more focused on exploring

232


new ways of doing things. Entrepreneurs will have a greater capacity to make decisions in situations where there are information deficiencies (Busenitz and Barney, 1997). Entrepreneurs from low uncertainty avoidance cultures are more likely to take risks and exploit opportunities available in the business environment. The findings of the GLOBE study highlight a number of cultural characteristics relevant to explaining entrepreneurial behaviour in Ireland (Brodbeck et al., 2000). Ireland is included as part of the Angle cluster. Attributes of leadership relevant to this cluster included inspirational, visionary, decisiveness, participative, team-focused and performance-oriented characteristics. The Irish economic context for entrepreneurship education Ireland’s economic transformation has had a long and difficult trajectory. O’Gorman and Cooney (2007) have highlighted that business in Ireland was traditionally associated with agri-related business and in particular family businesses. Spillane et al. (2006) suggest that the proportion of family businesses of more than two generations are ones that were founded since the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922. The Republic of Ireland was part of the British Empire until 1922 and as a result, the majority of what Ireland produced was exported to Britain. Therefore, Ireland did not develop a sense of trade or of business ownership during that period. The emergence of the Free State provided a point of departure in terms of the influence of economic policy on entrepreneurship and enterprise. The ten years post-independence were characterized by a free trade policy. In 1932 the government introduced a policy of protectionism. This policy formed the cornerstone of economic policy for the next thirty years or so. Protectionism was not conducive to the emergence of enterprise and the growth of SMEs. Garvin (2004) has argued that protectionism resulted in the distortion of the economy and it did not facilitate the emergence of entrepreneurial activity for a significant period of time post-independence. Ireland, in fact, viewed foreign ownership of companies as the exercise of British control. Ireland did not start to encourage foreign-owned companies to set-up until the early 1960s. In the late 1960s, the Irish government began to focus on the promotion of foreign direct investment as a key component of its economic policy. This policy shift resulted in major growth in manufacturing industry over the next 20 years. The increased level of foreign direct investment (FDI) helped Ireland move away from dependence on the UK market. Sweeney (1999) has argued that the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) in 1949, had a major role to play in shifting the economy from an agricultural to an industry based economy. A significant downside of the focus of FDI was the slow emergence of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the development of a focus on indigenous enterprise. Those who were interested in establishing an enterprise had to emigrate to receive the assistance they needed (Business 2000, 2000). The Irish government began to change its policy stance once it realized that FDI was not secure (Barry, 2004). Irish governments from the 1980s onwards increasingly focused their attention on the development of SMEs as a key component of economic policy. Between 1980 and 2000 Ireland made the most significant economic transformation in the world. By 2000 the Republic of Ireland had achieved almost 14 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Burnham (2003) reported that Ireland achieved growth rates of 8 per cent annually between 1993 and 2001. The economy evolved from a high-debt, high-unemployment country to a lowdebt, full-employment economy. This transformation sparked significant debate among


233

academics and policy-makers concerning why this growth occurred. It appears to have resulted from the interaction of a number of factors including economic policies, the growth of the property market and very favourable global economic conditions. Demographic factors are highlighted as having particular significance in explaining Ireland’s economic transformation. Burnham (2003) has calculated that they accounted for 33 per cent of growth in gross national product (GNP) per capita in the first half of the 1990s and 50 per cent of the growth during the period 1995 to 2000. The rate of population growth during that period was one of the fastest among developing countries. Ireland has a unique demographic structure. High birth rates in the 1960s and the 1970s resulted in a large cohort of working-age people; however, a fall in the birth rate since the 1980s suggests a lower dependency ratio. Ireland had experienced high levels of emigration until the early 1990s with the result that the problems of an ageing population experienced in other OECD countries are not typical of Ireland. Since 2000 Ireland has experienced a major inflow of workers from Eastern Europe, Africa and other developing nations. The supply and quality of the Irish labour played a major role in the development of international trade, increased growth in output and employment levels. During the period 1990 to 2000, the percentage of the labour force in employment increased dramatically. This growth continued until 2007. Barry (2004) reported that in 2000 the employmentpopulation ratio was 56.4 per cent. Unemployment fell from 17 per cent in 1986 to under 4 per cent in 2001. This reduction in unemployment was partially explained by enterprise and self-employment. Between 2000 and 2007 Ireland continued its strong growth trajectory. During this period, in particular, government economic policy focused on moving Ireland up the value chain and has evolved towards a knowledge-based economy. The small-firm sector in Ireland has made a substantial contribution to national and regional economic development since 1990. The Small Business Forum (2006) suggested that there were approximately 250 000 small firms involved in manufacturing and service activity in 2005. These firms accounted for almost 99 per cent of all enterprises in Ireland and contributed 68 per cent of private sector employment. Employment in the small-firm sector increased to 79 per cent over the period 1995–2005. The downturn in the Irish economy since 2007 has resulted in a greater focus on enterprise and indigenous firms in order to stimulate economic growth. The majority of owner-managers in Ireland have some form of tertiary-level education, with female entrepreneurs having more PhDs than their male counterparts. The proportion of owners-managers within the adult population in Ireland is currently approximately 10.1 per cent which is higher than that the UK (8.2 per cent), and similar to that found in the USA (10.3 per cent). The level of early entrepreneurial activity, comprising nascent and new firm entrepreneurs, is approximately 8 per cent in Ireland. Approximately 0.25 million individuals aged 18 to 64 are actively involved in either planning a new business or have set up a new enterprise in the previous three to four years. This entrepreneurial activity can be attributed to Ireland’s economic development or what has become known as the ‘Celtic Tiger’. Enterprise and entrepreneurship education policy in the Republic of Ireland Enterprise policy and specific policy initiatives designed to promote entrepreneurship education are somewhat fragmented. Enterprise and entrepreneurship policy similarly cannot be considered in isolation from broader economic policy (Table 15.2). In terms of

234


Table 15.2

The evolution of enterprise policy in the Republic of Ireland

1930s–1950s

1960s–1980s

1980s–2000s

1932 – Large increases in tariffs on a wide range of imported goods

1961 – Application made to join the European Economic Community (EEC)

1932–1943 – Control of Manufacturers Act restricts foreign ownership of new Irish factories

1963 – EEC application withdrawn after collapse of talks between Britain and EEC

1986 – Industrial Development Act provides new statutory framework for enterprise support 1987 – Financial Services Act establishes International Financial Services Centre (IFSC). Profits from eligible activities undertaken in the Centre qualify for 10% tax rate until 2005 1987 – Programme for National Recovery negotiated between government and social partners

1965 – Anglo-Irish Free Trade 1933 – Establishment of Agreement requires phasing Industrial Credit Corporation out of tariffs on most British to provide finance for native goods within ten years industry 1960 – Industrial Development 1950 – Establishment of Act merges the IDA and An Industrial Development Foras Tionscail Authority to promote industrial development 1953 – Establishment of An Foras Tionscail to give grants of up to 100% of cost of land and buildings and 50% of cost of machinery to companies setting up in underdeveloped areas of the country 1956 – Industrial Grants Act provides that grants of up to two-thirds of cost of land and buildings can be given for new industry in all parts of the country 1956 – Finance Act gives 50% remission on tax on profits from exports. Finance Act 1958 increases export tax relief to 100%. Finance Act 1960 extends export tax relief for 15 years with tapering relief for a further five years’ economic development 1958 – ‘sooner or later protection will have to go and the challenge of free trade be accepted’

1969 – Export profit tax relief extended to 1990

1987 – First Minister of State for Science and Technology appointed, and Science and Technology Development programme initiated 1989 – First EU-funded Industry Operational Programme launched

1973 – Ireland joins EEC. Tariffs on imports of almost all manufactured goods from EEC member states to be phased out over five years

1992 – Publication of the Culliton Report

1981 – Industrial Development (No. 2) Act enables grants to be paid for designated internationally traded services. IDA establishes International Services Programme

1993 – Single Market in goods, services, capital and labour takes effect in European Union. Establishment of City and County Enterprise boards

1981 – Export tax relief replaced 1993 – Industrial Development Act establishes three agencies: by a 10% tax on all profits IDA Ireland for overseas in manufacturing sector, but industry; Forbairt for indigeremains in force until 1990 for nous industry; and Forfás as an companies already qualifying advisory and coordination body


235

(continued)

1930s–1950s

1960s–1980s

1980s–2000s

1958 – Easing of restrictions on foreign ownership of industry in Control of Manufacturers Acts 1932 and 1934. Acts repealed in 1964

1982 – Review of industrial policy by Telesis criticizes excessive reliance on foreign industry. Proposes reduction in grant aid to foreign firms and greater emphasis on building up strong indigenous firms 1984 – White Paper on Industrial Policy proposes greater focus on developing indigenous industry

1994 – The report on the ‘Task Force for Small Business’ is published

1959 – Shannon Free Airport Development Company (SFADCO) established to promote industrial development in the Shannon area

1998 – Agreement with European Commission on 12.5% standard corporation tax rate from 2003

1998 – Industrial Development Act establishes Enterprise Ireland as a new development agency for indigenous industry incorporating Forbairt, An Bord Tráchtá la and some activities of FÁS 1999 – Commencement of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and euro. Changeover to € to be completed by February 2002 2000 – Government approves €646 million Technology Foresight Fund and set up Science Foundation Ireland to manage it. 2000 – Establishment of InterTrade Ireland to promote all-island trade and enterprise development 2004 – Publication of the Enterprise Strategy Group ‘Ahead of the Curve’ document 2005 – Establishment of the Small Business forum 2006 – Report by the Small Business Forum, ‘Small business is big business’, is published Source:

Devised from Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment (2003).

236


definitional scope, Lundström and Stevenson (2005) suggest that entrepreneurial policy focuses on the creation of an environment and support system that is conducive to the emergence of new entrepreneurs, start-ups and early stage growth of new firms. Cooney and Kidney (2008) have argued that Ireland has not had an explicit national policy on entrepreneurship. Ireland has, however, had an enterprise policy which, by and large, focused on FDI. Enterprise policy in the early 1950s was primarily focused on regional development. The Irish Industrial Development Authority made a distinction between designated and non-designated areas. Designated areas were generally less industrialized, less populated and more peripheral. The primary preoccupation was on attempts to avoid a rural–urban divide and to reduce the over-concentration of foreign-owned MNCs in particular areas. Enterprise policy initiatives sought to balance a focus on the region with an emphasis on attracting FDI. During the period 1980–90 the promotion of indigenous enterprise was of secondary importance. The Culliton Report in 1992 was critical of enterprise policy and suggested that the Irish government should focus on Irish industry (O’Malley, 2003). A state agency (Forfás) was established with overall responsibility for enterprise policy and development. An additional state agency was established, Enterprise Ireland, which was given responsibility for indigenous enterprise. In 1993 the Government established City and County Enterprise Boards (CEBs). These Boards signalled policy shift towards the creation and development of micro-enterprises and a particular focus on the services sector. The establishment of CEBs resulted in the devolution of decision-making to Boards, representative of business, political, local government and social partner interests. The 2007 National Development Plan focused on the development of a knowledge and innovation-based economy. The Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2006–13 committed Ireland to an investment of €1.88 billion to fund research. This research is primarily targeted at higher education infrastructure and, in particular, the commercialization of the outputs of research. The shift in policy towards the funding of research in HEIs was initially signalled in the National Development Plan, 2000–2006. The Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) was established in 2001 to undertake and support strategic research in niche areas of ICT and biotechnology. During the period 2001 to 2007 SFI approved over 1600 awards. The Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) was initiated in 1998. Administered by the Higher Education Authority this programme has focused on the creation of an infrastructure for research and the development of Ireland’s brightest researchers. Jordan and O’Leary (2007) have estimated that between 1997 and 2006 gross expenditure on research and development (R&D) in Ireland increased by 7.6 per cent per annum. The proportion of public funding to R&D in HEIs rose from 20 per cent of gross expenditure in 1996 to 26 per cent in 2006. Forfás (2007) reported that in international terms, Ireland still lags behind on R&D expenditure. The absence of a comprehensive national policy on entrepreneurship is a major negative in the case of the Republic of Ireland. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (DETE) currently has responsibility for the coordination and creation of national entrepreneurship policy. The government has given consideration to the formulation of such a policy. Its broad goals will focus on the stimulation of entrepreneurial potential, reinforcing entrepreneurship in the education system and enhancing Ireland’s culture of entrepreneurship (Small Business Forum, 2006). Hanley and O’Gorman


237

(2004) have highlighted that enterprise and entrepreneurship policy has traditionally focused on the supply side of entrepreneurship, specifically the number and type of potential entrepreneurs. Policies have also been implemented to influence skill availability and input aspects of entrepreneurship. Policy initiatives during the period 2004–07 focused more on the development of attitudes and values of individuals who wish to be entrepreneurs. This focus on attitudes and values is reflected in the report ‘Ahead of the Curve’ (Enterprise Strategy Group, 2004). This report argued that education should meet social, cultural and economic needs. The education system should be sufficiently flexible to respond to economic and social change and ensure a supply of skills appropriate to an effectively functioning economy. Critical areas highlighted included the need for higher education to create expert knowledge and produce graduates with competencies to support the knowledge economy; initiatives to up-skill the existing workforce; increased levels of education and the incentivization of the workforce to meet the skill requirements of the economy. The overall objective of these initiatives is to stimulate indigenous ‘enterprise/dynamism’ within the economy. Various international reports and studies are critical of initiatives designed to promote entrepreneurial activity. The GEM Irish Report (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2005) is particularly critical of Irish performance in this area. It highlighted the need for a national campaign to promote entrepreneurial activity at all levels in society. Ireland does not perform well on the monitoring of entrepreneurship policy, and targeted initiatives for under-represented groups. There is a major overlap in government policies and initiatives. Cooney and Kidney (2008) have argued that the approach adopted by Ireland can generally be described as competitive with some elements of social embeddedness. Nationally initiatives have been implemented to coordinate the relationship between researchers and business as a way of improving the national record on investment in R&D. Education institution and programme context of entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland Entrepreneurship education provision has grown significantly in Ireland since 2000. This growth has primarily taken place at the tertiary level. Entrepreneurship and enterprise education at primary and secondary levels is an add-on rather than an integral part of the educational process. There are a few systematic attempts at these levels to develop students who are entrepreneurial in their ways of thinking and behaving, however no programme has been formally integrated into the primary and secondary school curriculums. A variety of higher education institutions have developed specialist programmes in entrepreneurship as well as specialist modules on entrepreneurship and enterprise incorporated into other programmes of study. The philosophy and content of current programmes and modules is influenced by both university and programme contexts. Particular aspects of university and HE context highlighted include institution governance and leadership (Sotirakou, 2004), organizational culture, strategy and purpose (Poole and Robertson, 2003), and institutions’ approaches to the commercialization of research and technology (Etzkowitz, 2003). This complex context explains how entrepreneurship is understood in a particular institution, the ways in which entrepreneurship education are designed and the types of people involved in delivering these programmes. A major HE context factor focuses on the relationship between the institution and the

238


world of business. In particular the interaction between students and businesses, the culture supporting academic entrepreneurship, and the role of business in designing such programmes. Universities and HE institutions in Ireland began to make a significant contribution to enterprise and entrepreneurship in the late 1990s. De Faoite et al. (2003) reported that universities and institutes of technology have not traditionally had a clearly defined role in economic development. The role of universities was formally recognized in the late 1980s whereas institutes of technology had their role in economic development formalized in 1992. In 2007 a Forfás report acknowledged the role of institutes of technology but highlighted the absence of an overarching policy framework. The GEM report (Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2005) was similarly critical. The report found a lack of an entrepreneurship agenda throughout the education system, the need to identify entrepreneurship as a career option at all levels of education, the need to focus on changing the entrepreneurial culture of HE institutions and greater prioritization of creativity and entrepreneurship throughout the education system. At second-level education there is recognition that national curricula needs to have more explicit objectives for entrepreneurship education (European Commission, 2008). The question arises as to whether universities and institutes of technology can be entrepreneurial. Current policy suggests that HE institutions have a major role to play in innovation, they should act in an entrepreneurial way and encourage others to do so. Jordan and O’Leary (2007) found that the greater the frequency of interactions with HEIs, the lower the probability of both product and process innovation of businesses. They did find evidence of a positive indirect HEI effect. This came about through complementariness of interactions with suppliers and support agencies. The negative HEI effect may come about because businesses turn to HEIs with problems that do not have a solution. Differences in work practices between businesses and academics may also be important in hampering the commercial development of new products and processes. There is concern that given the way universities and HEIs are structured in terms of governance, leadership and administration, they are slow to respond to and recognize entrepreneurial activity. Ireland has had insufficient debate concerning academic entrepreneurship, commercialization strategies and relationships with the world of business. Irish business has had an intermittent rather than an ongoing relationship with HEIs. Structures within Irish universities are generally considered not to be sufficiently responsive to the needs of innovating Irish businesses. Jacob et al. (2003) argued that entrepreneurship education can be used to change institution cultures and create more conducive conditions where commercialization and academic entrepreneurship can occur. Furthermore, there is a lack of entrepreneurial experience amongst teaching staff. The mobility of teachers between higher education institutions and businesses is a particular problem (European Commission, 2008). Hynes and Richardson (2007) argued that Irish universities have traditionally focused on the student and excluded the entrepreneur and owner-manager of the small firm. Forfás (2007) found that higher education–industry collaboration operated at a very low level in Ireland. Structures to encourage this collaboration have not succeeded. There is a lack of a sufficient supply of applied research capability available to small firms in educational institutions. Gaps exist in technology transfer, product/process development, R&D, software innovation and within the business domain in terms of functional skills such as finance, marketing,


239

general management and people management. A 2008 European Commission report highlighted that in Ireland, lecturers are not allowed to participate in external commercial activities. Academics are therefore not motivated to work in a business environment. Higher education institutions are slow to accept entrepreneurial experience as a criterion for professorial/teaching positions. Some Irish universities and institutions of technology have taken specific steps to foster interactions between students and entrepreneurs. Such steps include: e-mentoring, student consulting projects, internships and job placements, and business start-up situations. These interactions are beneficial to students, entrepreneurs and education institutions. They help to raise student awareness of entrepreneurships, students are an important resource to entrepreneurial start-up situations, they facilitate experiential learning and they are of value in changing the perceptions of both students and entrepreneurs (Hegarty, 2006; Hill et al., 2003; Hynes, 1996). Entrepreneurial education provided by Irish HEIs has had a significant impact on the awareness and perceptions of students. Birdthistle et al. (2009) found that engagement with real-life environments provided enhanced opportunities to develop enhanced entrepreneurial outlooks. It also led, in some cases, to action and a career in entrepreneurship. Students who participated in third-level entrepreneurial programmes were positive concerning their competencies and skills. There are debates concerning whether entrepreneurship can be taught, the role of theory versus practice, the content of entrepreneurship programmes, the role of the business school and the place of entrepreneurship studies in a university. Methods used to teach entrepreneurship vary considerably across programmes but many of the more successful programmes employ a blended approach, including action learning, new venture modelling, technology-based simulations, development of actual ventures, video roleplays, experiential learning, mentoring and coaching. The majority of entrepreneurship modules are found in business courses. Table 15.3 provides a summary of the characteristics of entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland. Current programme provision highlights a number of trends. There is a significant degree of overlap between the entrepreneurial and managerial domains. There is an increased emphasis on corporate entrepreneurship and the role of internal corporate venturing. Irish programmes focus on the risks of an entrepreneurial career, entrepreneur types and how entrepreneurs achieve success. Relatively few programmes focus on the ethical dimensions of entrepreneurship. Venture financing and start-up issues are consistent themes across all programmes, as are issues that relate to the characteristics that define the entrepreneurial personality, the challenges associated with the early stage of venture development, ambiguity tolerance, idea protection and a multiplicity of skills, including negotiation, leadership, new product development, creative thinking and technological innovation. Business schools may not be the most appropriate place to locate these programmes. Innovative ideas frequently emerge from science, technology, IT, engineering, and so on. To date, there is relatively limited evidence of interdisciplinary approaches where entrepreneurship education is available to all students and where teams are created consisting of students from a variety of business disciplines. The characteristics of Irish students who undertake entrepreneurship programmes

240


Table 15.3

Characteristics of entrepreneurship education in the Republic of Ireland: a summary

Issue What is taught?

Characteristics and initiatives Primary school Limited focus in celebrating each child’s entire range of talents and aspirations ● Greater need to nurture creativity and active learning based on children’s natural curiosity ● Current initiatives include Junior Achievement, Bí Gnóthach and Gaisce Awards ●

Secondary school Limited focus on emphasizing the joy of business, serving others, empathy and fundamentals of business ● Teachers do not always understand the challenges of business and how best to develop entrepreneurial thinking and behaviour ● Irish second-level education is primarily left brain education, particularly for business students. ● Fragmented approach to entrepreneurship and enterprise programmes ● Topics on enterprise are included on business studies courses and Leaving Certificate Applied ● Examples of initiatives include Young Entrepreneurs Scheme (YES), Young Enterprise Ireland Project, Enterprise Encounter Project and Student Enterprise Awards ●

Third level Large number of programmes and modules but highly fragmented and lacking purpose and direction ● A strong focus on theory and book learning with not enough action learning, consultancy and business activity ● A combination of specialist entrepreneurship programmes combined with modules on enterprise and entrepreneurship incorporated into generalist programmes ● Very little interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approaches to teaching of entrepreneurship ● Not enough engagement with the world of work, international entrepreneurship and issues across national, religions and ethic boundaries ● Initiatives include Enterprise Ireland Student Enterprise Awards, Newstalk 106 Awards, and Institutional Business Plan Competitions ● Provision is predominantly located in universities and institutes of technology ● Currently 18 postgraduate programmes. A number of programmes at Master’s level ● Sixteen Centres for Entrepreneurship/Innovation located primarily in HEIs ●

Who provides programmes in entrepreneurship?


241

(continued)

Issue

Characteristics and initiatives ● ● ● ●

Who does the teaching?

● ● ● ● ● ●

How is teaching undertaken?

● ●

●

●

●

Major growth in undergraduate programmes with specialist modules on enterprise and entrepreneurship Very little evidence of alignment of third-level entrepreneurship and enterprise programmes with initiatives at second level Limited evidence of outreach and social entrepreneurship programme provision Provision currently driven by initiatives by individual HEIs rather than integration at national level Not enough emphasis on entrepreneurial teachers and professors in the Irish system Low level of research and publications amongst entrepreneurship academics. Limited international reputation Reward systems in HEI does not sufficiently acknowledge teachers and academics who interact with the business community Very few academics who have been entrepreneurs and few entrepreneurs who are interested in teaching Limited understanding of what makes an effective or ideal entrepreneurship teacher or academic Not enough interaction with entrepreneurs in the delivery of programmes. Entrepreneurs not included sufficiently in the design stage of programmes Strong emphasis on traditional pedagogy and less focus on hands-on, project-based and multidisciplinary approaches More innovative programmes include a blend of approaches such as simulations and games, interactive teamwork – action learning projects, field trips, student-run businesses and business plans and other competitions Much instruction is classroom based. Limited use of flexible learning delivery. Limited use of volunteer advisers, mentors and coaches for students Some usage of digital tools such as digital games, simulations, animations, film, and so on. Some usage of technology-oriented BizCamps Extensive use of experienced entrepreneurs to evaluate business plans, provide critique and understand competition. Dragon’s Den type events where plans are presented to a panel of business people using pitch sessions to raise funds from investors

is unclear. The majority of the evidence focuses on personality traits and other human capital characteristics (Fleming, 1996; Low, 2005). Graduate personality traits tend to be linked to attitudes about self-employment and intention to create a new venture. Entrepreneurship intentions are also influenced by the extent of support available. Students do not engage in entrepreneurial ventures due to poor business knowledge, and poor assessment of the risks involved. Characteristics such as gender, family experience of entrepreneurship, education level and age are also important. A significant proportion

242


of Irish entrepreneurs tend to be male, younger and come from family situations where there is a tradition of business. Irish students who tend to be high on extroversion, have strong emotional stability and are categorized as creative, imaginative and intellectual. What are the outcomes of entrepreneurship education in Ireland? Entrepreneurship education in Ireland takes many forms including academic programmes, entrepreneurship training and individual or peer coaching. The purposes of entrepreneurship education are to enhance graduates’ employability and facilitate the creation of new ventures. Graduate entrepreneurs need to be multi-skilled. Experienced, motivated and focused entrepreneurs are as likely to fail as others. Education possesses the potential to fine-tune skills and ensure that they do not fall prey to poor decision-making. Many entrepreneurship education programmes in Ireland highlight the importance of social competences, including factors such as social adaptability, social perception, impression management, persuasion and influence. They also need the skill to find capital and human resources. Ireland has had success in terms of graduate education and graduate entrepreneurs. It ranks high within the European Union (EU) for the proportion of young adults with university degrees. Six out of ten major in engineering, science and business studies. High-technology entrepreneurs in Ireland tend not to come from families of entrepreneurs or follow a family tradition in business. Irish graduate entrepreneurs do credit their parents for support (Garavan et al., 1997a; 1997b). The educational background of high-technology entrepreneurs tends to be a Master’s in science or engineering and they tend to be first-timers. They therefore are young, married and have the support of a spouse. Fleming (1996) found that graduate entrepreneurs in Ireland identified business opportunities in electronics, software and financial services sectors. They had an average of nine employees and graduate entrepreneurs were predominately male, and started their business venture at 28 years of age. Their motivation for starting the venture was the identification of a feasible business opportunity, the discovery of a suitable business partner and the possibility of significant financial reward. Low (2005) found that graduate enterprise in Ireland typically started with entrepreneurs working for others before they started their own business. University education had a strong influence on self-employment and career choices. Other factors included a parental role model, work-hobby entrepreneurs and self-perceptions. The issue of graduate entrepreneurship start-ups is a more contentious one. There is some evidence indicating that graduate entrepreneurship leads to venture creation and that these ventures are more likely to succeed. Travers (2001) found that Irish entrepreneurs had three defining characteristics: ability, imagination and passion. He found that the emphasis was on individual achievements. Irish entrepreneurship graduates have strong intentionality which may explain their follow-through towards business start-ups. This outlook is usually culturally embedded and will be influenced by perceived and real barriers to effective start-ups. Entrepreneurship education represents an effective means of dealing with cultural perceptions and attitudes; however it is of less value in addressing economic, legal and bureaucratic barriers. Conclusion Business educators and policy-makers in Ireland have evolved beyond the myth that entrepreneurs are born not made. Given that Ireland’s major growth is partially


243

explained by the creation of new ventures, the question of whether it is possible to teach entrepreneurship has become redundant. The more pertinent question focuses on what should be taught and how entrepreneurship programmes should be structured and delivered to ensure a sufficient supply of entrepreneurs and the development of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship education in Ireland has had a relatively recent history. This late development can be attributed to a complex cultural, economic, political and policy history. For a considerable period of Ireland’s history since independence, it has focused on FDI and ignored the creation of small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures. This was a mistake. Given that Ireland is in transition to a knowledge-based economy, the role of indigenous enterprise in contributing to the wealth of the country is increasingly highlighted. Ireland has not clearly defined what its entrepreneurship and innovation policies should be. These two critical areas have become embedded in other policy frameworks and, as a result, the emphasis on entrepreneurship education has had less focus and is ill-defined. The Irish education system, in totality, has not delivered in developing entrepreneurs and students who think in an entrepreneurial way. At primary and secondary level there is a strong need to redesign curricula and integrate enterprise and entrepreneurship into the wider school curriculum. Irish higher education institutions have been criticized for being detached from the real world and insufficiently engaged with the business world. Higher education institutions to date have not had a sufficiently positive influence on Ireland’s innovation performance. Entrepreneurship education programmes are currently provided by the majority of HEIs in Ireland. These take the form of structured academic programmes and entrepreneurship located within business and technical programmes. The typical trajectory of development has been the inclusion of entrepreneurship as an add-on to business education – first as an elective, then as an undergraduate programme offering and, finally, as specialist postgraduate entrepreneurship offering. ‘Enterprise’ as a subject is typically not included in science and technology programmes, given that enterprise and entrepreneurship is traditionally located within business schools. In this regard, see Box 15.1. Entrepreneurial skills are required in many business domains. The majority of the contemporary policy discourse in Ireland calls for the development of an entrepreneurial mindset and skills which are required in a knowledge intensive economy and the increased pace of globalization. Effective innovation comes from a complete set of elements. Innovation and entrepreneurial endeavour comes about through the combination of science and technology disciplines, with the softer components provided by business disciplines and the humanities. Many entrepreneurship programmes are located in an HEI infrastructure that prevents this multidisciplinary exchange. Many HEIs in Ireland traditionally had an internal focus and each discipline area tends to have a unique culture and language. These factors are further exaggerated when attempts are made to engage with industry. There is significant scope for Irish HEIs to develop structures that enable both multidisciplinary approaches and external interaction. The example from Australia could serve as an example. Irish approaches to entrepreneurship education have operated in a single rather than multidisciplinary way. Multidisciplinary approaches are necessary in order to make the most significant gains in terms of innovation. Entrepreneurship education should be

244


BOX 15.1

LEARNING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES: THE AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE

The Australian biotechnology industry has a strong reputation for innovation and entrepreneurship. Queensland University of Technology, QUT, has successfully pioneered a Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation degree that is unique in providing graduates that can fill the niche between pure/applied science and the commercialization of intellectual property. One of the current authors who developed the highly successful undergraduate qualification, Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation, BBI, at QUT has identified the need to provide an equivalent ‘bioneering’ approach and practice at postgraduate level. The Bachelor of Innovation model at QUT has been so successful that their primary degree graduates gain job placements within industry ahead of both PhD specialists in Science/Technology and MBA executives. It is apparent that within industry worldwide, there is a need for graduates that can cross-over between discipline boundaries. In Europe and across the globe, Governments are concerned that new innovatory approaches are required within the educational sector to respond to the needs of highly competitive sectors, such as Biotechnology. As a consequence, we should pay attention to academic developments in this regard ‘down under’. Features of QUT’s Master of Biotechnology Enterprise Programme include its distinctiveness in: ● ● ● ●

forging links and consolidates relationships with overseas universities and industry building on a sound science base offering science/technology students a unique ‘start-up’ business experience, and targeting SME needs in particular.

The programme offers students the ‘start-up’ industry experience that has been highly successful over the past decade in developing a culture of ‘bioentrepreneurship’ within the BBI programme. The success of the industry-based projects in the new programme relies on an industry-focus. Industry partners nominate projects and mentor the students who work in teams as companies. Whereas the traditional science/technology-based projects involve high levels of intense supervision, the business-based industry projects operate along the lines of problem-based learning exercises. This approach provides opportunities for students to seek outcomes that the industry can potentially adopt and adapt. Source:

Collet and Wyatt (2005).


245

defined in terms of the skills it wishes to develop, having regard to their contextual relevance. Universal or generic approaches are less likely to be effective. It must be located within the total entrepreneurial process, including its culture, economic and policy contexts. Entrepreneurship education must begin to address and meet a wide variety of individual and organizational requirements. The dynamic nature of the entrepreneurial environment requires innovative and challenging approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship. References Ardagh, J. (1997), Ireland and the Irish. Portrait of a Changing Society, New York: Penguin. Ardichvili, A. and A. Gas Parishville (2003), ‘Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: a study of value differences’, Organisation Studies, 24, 29–46. Barry, F. (2004), ‘Export-platform FDI: the Irish experience’, European Investment Bank, 9 (2), 8–37. Birdthistle, N. (2006), ‘Profiling the entrepreneur: an examination of entrepreneurs in the mid-west region of Ireland’, Journal of Economic and Organisation of Enterprise, 7 (678), 74–83. Birdthistle, N. (2008), ‘An examination of tertiary students desire to find an enterprise’, Journal of Education and Training, 59 (7), 552–67. Birdthistle, N., B. Hynes, M. O’Dwyer and Y. Costine (2009), Electronic Journal of Family Business Studies, 1 (3), 4–29. Brodbeck, F.C., M. Frese, S. Akerblom, G. Audia, G. Bakacsi, H. Bendova, D. Bodega, M. Bodur, S. Booth, K. Brenk, P. Castel, D. Den Hartog, G. Donnelly-Cox, M.V. Gratchev, I. Holmberg, S. Jarmuz, J.C. Jesuino, R. Jorbenadse, H. Kabasakal and M. Keating (2000), ‘Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries’, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 73 (1), 1–29. Burnham, J.B. (2003), ‘Why Ireland boomed’, The Independent Review, 8 (4), 537–56. Busenitz, L.W. and J.B. Barney (1997), ‘Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organisations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision making’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9–30. Business 2000 (2000), AIB enterprise and entrepreneurship, available at: http://www.business2000.ie/images/ pdfs/aib_6th_ed_pdf (accessed 10 August 2007). Byrne, C.J. and F. Bradley (2007), ‘Culture’s influence on leadership efficiency: how personal and national cultures affect leadership style’, Journal of Business Research, 60, 168–75. Carr, C. and S. Harris (2004), ‘The impact of diverse national values on strategic investment decisions in the context of globalisation’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 77–99. Collet, C. and D. Wyatt (2005), ‘Bioneering – teaching biotechnology entrepreneurship at the undergraduate level’, Education and Training, 47 (6), 408–21. Cooney, T.M. and E. Kidney (2008), Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy in European Countries: A Mapping of Measures in Ireland, Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology. Cuddy, J. and J. Evertsen (2004), ‘Building an innovative climate’, Innovation and Technology Transfer, 2/04, March, 10–13. Culliton Report (1992), A Time for Change: Industrial Policy for the 1990s. Report of the Industrial View Group, Dublin: Stationery Office. Davidson, P. and J. Wiklund (1997), ‘Values, beliefs and regional variations in new firm formation rates’, Journal of Economics Psychology, 18, 197–9. De Faoite, D., C. Henry, K. Johnson and P. Van der Sujde (2003), ‘Education and training for entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and the Netherlands’, Education and Training, 45 (9), 430–38. Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment (2003), Review of Industrial Performance and Policy, Dublin: Stationery Office Government Publications. De Pillis, E. and K.K. Reardon (2007), ‘The influence of personality traits and persuasive messages on entrepreneurial intention: a cross-cultural comparison’, Career Development International, 12 (4), 382–96. Enterprise Strategy Group (2004), ‘Ahead of the curve: Ireland’s place in the global economy’, available at: www.forfas.ie/esg (accessed 20 September 2008). Etzkowitz, H. (2003), ‘Research groups as quasi-firms: the invention of the entrepreneurial university’, Research Policy, 32 (1), 109–21. European Commission (2008), Entrepreneurship in Higher Education Especially within Non-Business Studies, Brussels: European Commission. Feldman, J.M. (2001), ‘Towards the post-university centres of higher learning and creative spaces as economic development and social change agents’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22 (1), 99–142. Fitzsimons, P. and C. O’Gorman (2005), The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2005: The Irish Report, Dublin: Cahill Printers.

246


Fitzsimons, P. and C. O’Gorman, (2007), The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2006. The Irish Report, Dublin: Dublin City University Business School. Fitzsimons, P. and C. O’Gorman (2008), Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2007: Dublin: Dublin City University Business School. Fitzsimons, P., C. O’Gorman, M. Harte and E. McGloin (2004), Entrepreneurship on the Island of Ireland, Dundalk: InterTrade Ireland. Fleming, P. (1996), ‘Entrepreneurship education in Ireland: a longitudinal study’, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 2 (1), 94–118. Fogarty, M. (1973), Irish Entrepreneurs Speak for Themselves, Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute. Forfás (2007), Forfás Annual Report 2006i, Dublin: Forfás. Garavan, T., P. Fleming and B. Ó Cinnéide (1997a), Entrepreneurship and Business Start-Ups in Ireland, Dublin: Oak Tree Press. Garavan, T., B. Ó Cinnéide, M. Garavan, B. Hynes and F. Walsh (1997b), Entrepreneurship and Business Start-Ups in Ireland: Volume 2, Cases, Dublin: Oak Tree Press. Garavan, T.N. and B. Ó Cinnéide (1994), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training programme: a review and evaluation’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 18 (8), 3–12. Garvin, T. (2004), Preventing the Future: Why was Ireland so Poor for so Long? Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. Goodbody (2002), Entrepreneurship in Ireland, Dublin: Goodbody Economic Consultants. Hanley, M. and B. O’Gorman (2004), ‘Local interpretation of national micro-enterprise policy: to what extent has it impacted on local enterprise development’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 10 (5), 305–24. Hegarty, C. (2006), ‘It is not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurs in Northern Ireland’, Education and Training, 48 (5), 322–35. Hill, S., B. Ó Cinnéide, and F. Kiesner, (2003), Graduate entrepreneurship education: an international ‘consumer’ guide, Proceedings of the ICSB 48th World Conference Belfast, 15–18 June. Hisrich, R.D. and B. Ó Cinnéide (1986), ‘The Irish entrepreneur: characteristics, problems and future success’, in R. Ronstadt, J.A. Hornaday, R. Peterson and K.H. Vesper (eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 66–81. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across Nations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hynes, B. (1996), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 20 (8), 10–17. Hynes, B. and I. Richardson (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship education: a mechanism for engaging and exchanging with the small business sector’, Education and Training, 49 (8–9), 732–44. Iredale, N. (2002), ‘Enterprise education’, University of Durham briefing paper, Foundation for Small and Medium Enterprise Development. Jacob, M., M. Lundquist and H. Hells Mark (2003), ‘Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology’, Research Policy, 329, 1555–68. Jordan, D. and E. O’Leary (2007), ‘Is Irish innovation policy working? Evidence from Irish technology businesses’, paper presented to a meeting of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Dublin, 25 October. Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship: development, trends and challenges’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, September, 577–97. Low, L. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship development in Ireland and Singapore’, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 19 (1), 116–38. Luddy, M. (1995), Women in Ireland, 1800–1918, Cork: Cork University Press. Lundström, A. and L. Stevenson (2005), Entrepreneurship Policy – Theory and Practice, New York: Springer. Mahoney, J.T., K.M. Eisenhardt and Y.E. Companys (2002), ‘The entrepreneurship dynamic: origins of entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries’, Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), 622–4. Mitchell, R.K., B. Smith, K.W. Seawright and E.A. Morse (2000), ‘Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 974–93. O’Gorman, C. and S. Terjesen (2006), ‘Financing the Celtic tigress: venture financing and informal investment in Ireland’, Venture Capital, 8 (1), 69–88. O’Gorman, W. and T.M. Cooney (2007), ‘An anthology of enterprise policy in Ireland’, Irish Journal of Management, 28 (2), 1–27. O’Malley, E. (2003), ‘The Culliton report’, in B. Lalor (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Ireland, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. Poole, D. and B. Robertson (2003), ‘Hunting the shark or leading with purpose? Managing the enterprise university’, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 9 (3), 416–30. Reynolds, P.D., W.D. Bygrave and E. Autio (2004), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003 Executive Report, Babson Park, MA: Babson College.


247

Small Business Forum (2006) ‘Small business is big business’, available at: http://www.forfas.ie/sbf/indexx.html (accessed 10 August 2007). Sotirakou, T. (2004), ‘Coping with conflict within the entrepreneurial university: threat or challenge for heads of departments in the UK higher education context’, International Review of Administrative Science, 70 (2), 345–72. Spillane, M., B. O’Gorman and N. Birdthistle (2006), ‘Family business and family business consultation in Ireland’, in F. Kaslow (ed.), Handbook of Family Business and Family Business Consultation, Binghampton, NY: Haworth Press. Steemsma, H.K., L. Marino and K.M. Weaver (2000), ‘Attitudes towards co-operative strategies: a crosscultural analysis of entrepreneurs’, Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 591–609. Sweeney, P. (1999), The Celtic Tigers: Ireland’s Continuing Economic Miracle, Dublin: Oak Tree Press. Tiessen, J.H. (1997), ‘Individualism, collectivism and entrepreneurship: a framework for international comparative research’, Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 367–84. Travers, J. (2001), Driving the Tiger, The Spirit of Irish Enterprise, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. Weaver, R. (1999), ‘Society, education systems and entrepreneurship’, Higher Education, December, 376–81. Whelan, G. and C. O’Gorman (2007), ‘The Schumpeterian and universal hero myth in stories of Irish entrepreneurs’, Irish Academy of Management, 28 (2), 79–107.

16 Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries: empirical findings and proposals for the design of university-wide concepts1 Norbert Kailer

1 Introduction: the importance of university-wide concepts The European Union (EU) wants to boost entrepreneurship as part of its strategy to transform its economy and to build up its future economic and competitive strength. The European Community’s Lisbon Strategy aims to foster economic dynamism while helping to create more and better jobs. Some of the most important priorities of the EU’s enterprise policy are creating entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning, as well as promoting entrepreneurship through the encouragement of business creation and the supporting of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) during their start-up and development phase. Entrepreneurship is considered to be a core competence for growth, employment and personal fulfillment (EC/Enterprise Directorate-General, 2004; EC, 2006a; 2006b). Entrepreneurship Education (EE) therefore is considered to be a crucial measure in fostering entrepreneurship (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate, 2008; EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). It is expected of graduates that they will found enterprises with high growth orientation which will have sustained success (Josten et al., 2008; EC 2002a; 2002b). The ‘International Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship’ (ISCE 2006) (Fueglistaller et al., 2006) as well as its successor study, the ‘Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students Survey’ (GUESSS) both underline the high potential for undergraduate and graduate students to start or succeed a business (Fueglistaller et al., 2009). Entrepreneurship Education (EE) has long been established in the Anglo-American area (Cone, 2005; Katz, 2004; Solomon et al., 2002). For this reason a clear gap in respective activities in Europe seems to exist (EC, 2006a; Hannon, 2005). Nevertheless, a European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research/European Foundation for Management Development (EFER/EFMD) survey revealed that EE in Europe has been growing dramatically over the past five years and is expected to continue growing (Wilson, 2007). This can also be said for the German-speaking countries, clearly visible through a distinct increase in the number of entrepreneurship chairs (Klandt et al., 2005). A recent mapping of the higher education landscape in German-speaking Europe showed that, if a broader definition of EE is taken into account, there is much more activity in universities in German-speaking countries throughout Europe than previously thought (Achleitner et al., 2007). For instance, a recent ranking of entrepreneurship activities of universities in Germany included over 200 universities with respective measures (Schmude and Heumann, 2007). The European Commmission launched an expert study about entrepreneurship in non-business studies (EC/Enterprise and 248

Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries

249

Industry Directorate-General, 2008) as well as a ‘Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe’ (EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). Universities are finding that becoming an ‘entrepreneurial university’ (Badelt, 2004; EC, 2006b; Gibb, 2005; Twaalfhoven and Wilson, 2004) has become increasingly important to strive for. Subset goals to complete this include: ● ● ●

to establish ‘self-employment’ as an educational goal for their students, alumni and academic staff to teach competencies needed for creating a start-up or for business succession to continually support and consult their alumni’s spin-offs and start-ups (Carlsson, 2005; EC, 2002b; Shane 2005).

The German-speaking area is especially characterized through a number of publicly subsidized programs and a well equipped subsidized infrastructure for start-ups (Sternberg et al., 2007; Wallau, 2008), for instance: the nationwide EXIST-program in Germany (BMWi, n.d.), on a regional level the SMILE program of the University of Leipzig, or the businessplan-competition ‘i2b’ in Austria. Rapidly growing enterprises or ‘gazelles’ are usually the main focus of these programs, as they are innovative, high-technology start ups with potential for growth (EC, 2002a; 2008b, Egeln et al., 2007; Meka, 2005; Twaalfhoven, 2007). Therefore, programs for supporting these start-ups as well as university-related incubators have been established. The Austrian ‘Academia1Business’ program and the Swiss ‘award for new entrepreneurs in technology and science’ are only two examples. International benchmark-studies and cases of best practice (for instance, EC, 2002b; Moog, 2005; EFER, 2007; EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a) as well as the university rankings in Germany (Schmude and Heumann, 2007) show clear differences in the main focuses of the universities’ activities concerning further education, consulting, internal and external cooperation, and the coaching of spin-offs. There are major differences in terms of both the attitude of the students towards entrepreneurship, and information about the field and the rate and success of start-ups between the universities (EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c; Fueglistaller et al., 2006; 2009; Kailer, 2007a). These differences indicate weak points in the various EE concepts. The number of entrepreneurship chairs and programs, business plan competitions, start-up centres, further training programs and incubators has risen steadily in recent years. More and more, regional cooperation and networking of the individual players is demanded (EC, 2006a; EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008). Additionally, a deficit of evaluation is noticed (Kailer, 2007b; Stampfl and Hytti, 2002; Storey, 2000). Proof for the effects of EE programs is demanded (Charlton, 2005; EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; OECD et al., 2007; Schmude and Heumann, 2007; Weaver et al., 2006). This is especially important for a number of endowed chairs who are installed for a limited time period, wherein the matters of continuing external and internal financing needs are to be discussed (Klandt et al., 2005).

250


It is a central challenge for universities to develop a broad concept of EE (EC/ Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; Gutschelhofer and Kailer, 2002; Hannon, 2005; Koch, 2003; Moog, 2005; Vyakarnam, 2005). Effectively and efficiently designed programs and courses are a major component of this concepts (Henry et al., 2003; House, 1967; Kurtz et al., 1984; Müller, 2008). A university entrepreneurship education concept (UEC), however, is based upon strategic decisions concerning university and faculty development (EasterbySmith and Tanton, 1988), which embraces both medium- and long-term decisions (see Table 16.1): ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

vision and underlying program philosophy (Burgoyne and Stuart 1978) commitment to continuous evaluation and development of the concept (EasterbySmith, 1986) organizational structure of the unit(s) responsible for EE within the organization (Pittaway and Hannon 2007) identification of internal and external cooperation partners, networking and cooperation policy networking and partnerships with businesses and other universities recruitment and development of academic staff (including entrepreneurs and alumni as educators) framework conditions, for example, inventions, patents, additional entrepreneurial activities of staff, career plans range of activities offered, for example, entrepreneurship programs as well as other ‘hard and soft support’ measures (Kirby, 2006) and outreach activities decisions concerning strategic target groups as well as both application and admission procedures funding policy support of and investment in spin-offs.

In particular, outreach activities, support measures, external cooperation and alumni networks are considered to be crucial for entrepreneurial universities (Twaalfhoven, 2007). Findings from empirical studies from German-speaking countries and from international studies concerning design parameters of central importance to UEC are presented in section 2. Based thereupon design elements as well as proposals for the practical design of UECs are discussed in section 3. 2

Empirical findings

2.1 Surveys A critical evaluation of the literature of EE has highlighted a number of definitional, conceptual and contextual issues inherent to this field of research. With the exemption of Charney and Libecap (2000), Henry et al. (2003), Fayolle et al. (2005) or the Vienna Career Project (Mayrhofer et al., 2005), a distinct lack of longitudinal studies exists in EE (Kailer, 2007b). Several international surveys also include findings regarding academic institutions in the German-speaking region:

251 S Universities

N = 1924 (27%) N = 869 N = 1062 (8.5%)/37 N = 425 (9.8%) N = 940 (18%) N = 67

Q Q

Q

OS OQ Q

Q

Q Q

Q

OS

Leodolter (2005)

Kailer (2007a) Kailer et al. (2010) Bauer and Kailer (2003)

Holzer and Adametz (2003) Pinkwart (2002) Welter and Heinemann (2007) IGW-HSG and START (2003) Fueglistaller and Halter (2006) Schmude and Heumann (2007)

N = 1.830 (16%) N = 2700 (25%) N = 8.439 (9%) N = 86

N = 495 (29%)

A (1990–2003) S S AS S

S A (1989–2000) A (1997–2004) S A S AS

S

Ennöckl (2002) Euler (2004)

N = 469, quota sample N = 368 (52%) N = 425 (30%)

Q

Target group

Richter (2000)

Response (rate)

Method

Ranking of German universities

U. St. Gallen/All

U. St. Gallen/All

U. Siegen/All U. Siegen/All

U. Linz/Business Administration U. Linz/All U Linz/All Tech. U. Graz/all + 14 engineers courses at 4 univ.of applied science Tech. U. Graz /All

U. Linz/All U. Linz/Technology

U. Linz/All

University/faculty

EE activities, support, networks

PE, M, CP, H, I, N, C, UC

PE, M, CP, H, N, C

PE, M, C, H, I, N PE, M, C, H, I, N

CP, I, N, UC

PE, M, CP, H, I, N, C, UC PE, M, CP, H, I, N, ST, UC, FB PE, M, C, H, I, N

PE, M, H, I, N, UC, ST

PE, M, CP, H, I, N, C CP, PK, FB

PE, M, CP, H, I, N, ST, C, FB

Main topics

Universities with several entrepreneurship-related surveys and surveys on an international level (since 2000)

Author(s) and year

Table 16.1

252 N = 86 n > 50.000 OQ: n = 448 (25%); I: 37

Delphi OQ

OQ, I

N = 20

AS HEI

EE experts S

AS program managers Universities

S

Target group

32 countries (EU, candidates, etc.)

14 countries, 93 universities Business schools/ universities, 25 European countries/North America Universities in Europe and America Technical studies 20 countries

University/faculty

Teaching, outreach, HR resources, barriers, strategy

Topics, framework conditions PE, M, CP, H, I, N, ST, C, UC

EE concepts of universities

EE trends in Europe AS training needs

PE, M, CP, H, I, N, C, UC

Main topics

Notes: Method: Questionnaire (Q), Online-Questionnaire (OQ), Interview (I). Target group: Students (S), Alumni (A) (years of graduation), Academic Staff (AS). Topics: Professional Experience (PE), Motivation (M), Career Planning (CP), Hindrances (H), Infrastructure (I), Support Needs (N), Start-up activities (ST), Competences (C), Cooperation with university (UC), Feedback concerning studies (FB).

Stockinger (2010) Fueglistaller et al. (2010) (GUESSS) EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry (EU Survey) (2008a; 2008b; 2008c)

Cases

N = 249

OS

Moog (2005)

N = 37.412

OS

Fueglistaller et al. (2006) (ISCE) Wilson (2004) (EFER/ EFMD Survey)

Response (rate)

Method

(continued)

Author(s) and year

Table 16.1

Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries ●

● ● ●

●

253

The International Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship (ISCE) focuses on entrepreneurship potential and activities of students (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). This study integrates data from Germany (Chlosta et al., 2006), Switzerland (Fueglistaller and Halter, 2006), Liechtenstein (Bergmann and Halter, 2006) and Austria (Kailer, 2007a). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor provides information about the business environments (Bosma and Harding 2007). A study of the current status of EE activities at business schools in Europe and North America was carried out by EFER and EFMD (Wilson, 2004). The Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS) – the successor study of ISCE – provides information about the entrepreneurial potential and activities of university students in 20 countries (Fueglistaller et al., 2009). The European Commission’s Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe was published at the end of 2008 (EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c).

German universities are ranked according to their activities in EE on an annual basis (Schmude and Heumann 2007). An additional survey focusing on knowledge-intensive industries has been conducted at 37 German universities by Josten et al. (2008). Only some universities have carried out more than one study among students, alumni and academic staff to analyse the impact of their activities. Table 16.1 gives an overview of these universities, including surveys on international level (since 2000). Basically, three different groups have been interviewed at academic institutions in the German-speaking area. The first group is composed of students who were analysed by Kailer and Sokolish (1999), Richter (2000), Otten (2000), Pinkwart (2002), Frank et al. (1999; 2002), Ennöckl (2002), Franke and Lüthje (2002; 2004), BMBF (2002), Bauer and Kailer (2003), Voigt (2004), Fueglistaller et al. (2004), Berwert et al. (2004), IGWHSG and START (2003), UnternehmerTUM (2004), Welter and Heinemann (2007) and Josten et al. (2008). The second group is composed of alumni who have been interviewed by Holzer and Adametz (2003), Thierstein et al. (2002), Slembeck (2005), Kerst and Minks (2005), Kailer et al. (2010), Leodolter (2005) and Böhm (2008). Third, surveys among professors and scientific staff were carried out by Bauer and Kailer (2003), IfM Bonn (2004), Isfan et al. (2005), Welter and Heinemann (2007) and Stockinger (2009). A major critique is that the above mentioned surveys are diverse as far as method and research questions are concerned. Therefore it is hard to compare the findings because they do not show a coherent picture. The situation seems to be similar in the AngloAmerican region (Botham and Mason, 2007; Hannon, 2005; McKeown et al., 2006; Shane, 2003). 2.2

Empirical findings

2.2.1 Framework conditions for EE at universities The comparison of EE in Europe shows a diverse picture as far as the organization and curricular structure or content of EE is concerned (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). Entrepreneurship chairs have been installed in German-speaking regions at universities of applied sciences

254


(Fachhochschulen) and at universities, but not primarily at universities of technology. Two-thirds of the institutes and chairs are funded by sponsorships or are co-financed. Three-quarters of all chairs are within the universities’ business school. Only a few entrepreneurship centers are not affiliated to a particular faculty and operate universitywide. About three-quarters of the institutions cooperate with entrepreneurship networks (Klandt et al. 2005). In some cases, transfer centers have been installed with a focus on awareness activities and consulting. A result of this structure is that the capacity for teaching and research is mostly tied to one faculty which leads to a deficit of integrated programs (Schmude, 2001). Compared to the Anglo-American region, entrepreneurship chairs in most cases have considerably fewer staff and less financial resources (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008a; 2008b; Twaalfhoven et al, 2000). Public funding and support for EE programs as well as entrepreneurship chairs plays a central role. Outreach activities and networks with alumni are, in comparison, less available. Thus, the importance of funding by alumni networks or individuals is still very low. Universities mainly offer courses on the undergraduate and graduate levels whereas the support of academic spin-offs, for instance through coaching or venture capital, is of relatively minor importance. This task is taken over by nonprofit oriented organizations and publicly subsidized high-technology incubators with or without the participation of the university. Anglo-American universities, moreover, have a stronger focus on rapid-growing enterprises (Böhm, 2004; EFER, 2007; Moog, 2005; Solomon et al., 2002; Wilson, 2004). The financing of these ‘gazelles’ is considered to be a comparative strength of US universities (Harms and Grichnik 2007). 2.2.2 Lack of evaluation A particular deficit in the field of EE lies in the evaluation of measures and concepts (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994; Hytti and Kuopusjärvi, 2004; Kailer, 2007a; Stampfl and Hytti, 2002; Storey, 2000). Input evaluation is widespread. However, the measuring of impacts concerning the resulting changes in attitudes shows to be lacking (Fayolle et al., 2005). Longitudinal studies showing the impact of training programs with the inclusion of output variables and evaluation of the long-term business success (for instance, Charney and Libecap, 2000; Henry et al., 2003; Lucas and Cooper, 2004) are not available for the German-speaking region. Besides, until now it is rare that individual career developments of alumni are analysed (for instance, Kailer, 2009; Mayrhofer et al., 2005) although some universities are planning alumni-tracking activities. 2.2.3 1.

Identification of influence factors

Professional experience as a positive influence factor. A significant factor with regard to entrepreneurial activities of students is their professional experience which can be obtained, for example, from prior or ongoing full- or part-time employment, internships in enterprises, further training or projects. The proportion of students with more than one year of professional experience has risen significantly during the last years (Welter and Heinemann, 2007). Particularly almost all students of technical studies have explicit professional experience (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; UnternehmerTUM, 2004). This is of relevance due to the significant link between


255

professional experience and a decision for self-employment (BMBF, 2002). A significant proportion of students already have entrepreneurial experience (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). This proportion varies considerably among universities (up to 7 per cent of the total number of students). Factors of negative influence. In contrast, several negative factors have been found (Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Kailer, 2009; Stockinger, 2009):

2.

● ● ● ● ●

not enough equity, search for mortgage and long term loans, financial risk lack of business ideas know-how deficits, particularly in the commercial field lack of professional experience (less among alumni) lack of industry experience, supplier and/or customer contacts.

As expected, there are study-related and gender-related differences here (Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Josten et al., 2008). Students with little interest in self-employment mention psychological reasons, such as high risk, insecurity about future income or the general fear of failure as a hindrance (Welter and Heinemann, 2007). The more detailed and concrete a person’s plans for a start-up are, the more concrete hindrances can be named (for example, finance, missing business partner). In this context, Pinkwart (2002) underlines that perceived start-up hindrances are of higher impact than the entrepreneurship motives. For alumni the lack of finance, financial risk and personal or familiar reasons are the most important hindrances. In addition, a secure position as an employee is considered as a major hindrance for alumni to become (fully) selfemployed. (Leodolter, 2005; Slembeck, 2005). Göthner et al. (2008) point out that even scientists with positive entrepreneurial attitude slightly lack confidence that they could successfully commercialize their research, even if the market potential is there. 2.2.4 Entrepreneurship infrastructure and needs for support The German-speaking region is characterized by numerous systems and initiatives supporting entrepreneurship (Kailer et al., 2000). Almost all of these are heavily subsidized by the government or regional authorities. Nevertheless students (with the exception of entrepreneurship students) are not very well informed of these support measures. This is also the case for programs and activities organized by their home university (Ennöckl, 2002; Welter and Heinemann, 2007; Josten et al., 2008; Kailer and Sokolish, 1999; UnternehmerTUM, 2004). Universities surveys show very different results here; this points out specific deficits in their communication strategies. According to Ennöckl (2002), Bauer and Kailer (2003) and Fueglistaller et al. (2006), the most important support needs of students are: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

consulting with focus on support and finance establishing customer and supplier contacts coaching in the pre-seed period of the start-up establishing business angel contacts consulting with focus on patents and licenses providing IT and office infrastructure seminars (law, business administration, leadership, moderation, strategy).

256


Female students require internships, mentoring, coaching and further training especially in the commercial field (Josten et al., 2008). The more intense the willingness to become self-employed, the higher the desire of both students and alumni to participate in very practical measures, which are highly transfer oriented and tailor-made to individual needs. Workshops to exchange experiences with entrepreneurs, individual consulting, workshops focusing on start-up topics, as well as contacts with experts and investors are very highly regarded in this respect (Kailer and Sokolish, 1999; Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Ennöckl, 2002; Kailer, 2007a; Leodolter, 2005). Students who just plan their start-up evaluate these measures, in most cases, better than students who are already entrepreneurs (Kailer, 2007a). This is a hint that universities put more emphasis on undergraduate and graduate education and less effort on consulting and coaching of start-up projects. The most important sources of information and consulting for start-ups and business successors are the chamber of commerce, banks, the Internet, tax consultants and lawyers (Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Kailer and Weiss, 2005). Only seldom the university is mentioned as an important contact partner in this respect. On the one hand, this might relate to know-how deficits among students concerning the whole array of support measures offered by the university (Welter and Heinemann, 2007 p. 25; Josten et al., 2008; Kailer and Sokolish, 1999). On the other hand this is the result of existing support deficits by universities themselves (IfM Bonn, 2004). According to Isfan et al. (2005), about half of the German professors do not support students or scientific staff who are willing to become self-employed. The higher the ‘extra-university’ professional experience is, the more likely is the support of potential entrepreneurs. The development of a strong network for the support of potential academic founders, including the universities, is therefore of utmost importance to open the access to market data (Knuth, 2008; Koch and Kautonen, 2005). 2.2.5 Findings for time components Because of the perceived lack of professional experience, most students plan to start their own business only some years after graduation. The estimated average time period is two to five years of professional experience before start-up creation (BMBF, 2002; Ennöckl, 2002; Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Josten et al., 2008; Kailer, 2007a). Part-time students, who are fully employed during their studies, on the contrary, have more professional experience and plan the start-up often directly after their graduation (Kailer and Sokolish, 1999). This can also be stated concerning scientific staff who hold time-limited job contracts (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Kriegesmann, 2000). Although a significant number of students are already entrepreneurs during their studies (Kailer, 2007a), students from family businesses prefer a succession only after their graduation (Leodolter, 2005). Surveys among alumni also demonstrate a time span of several years between graduation and entrepreneurial activity (Leodolter, 2005; Kerst and Minks, 2005). Therefore, a focus on alumni is relevant for universities – with rising importance. Compared to the Anglo-American region, the cooperation of universities in the German-speaking region with their alumni is relatively low (Moog, 2005; Wilson, 2004). A survey of alumni networks in German-speaking countries revealed that most of them do not offer support or further training to (potential) start-up entrepreneurs or business successors (Haböck, 2007). Surveys among alumni and enterprises in Austria show that contacts after gradu-


257

ation exist mainly at the level of departments or institutes (Holzer and Adametz, 2003; Thum-Kraft et al., 2007). Therefore it makes sense to establish an alumni network within the entrepreneurship chair, in addition to existing university-wide alumni networks or associations. 2.2.6 Findings for attitudes towards entrepreneurial activities Only one-quarter to onethird of the interviewed students exclude self-employment as a career option (Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Welter and Heinemann, 2007; Josten et al., 2008; Kailer, 2007a). Depending on the surveys, approximately 5 per cent to 15 per cent of the students are entrepreneurs already during their studies or shortly after their graduation; half of them are part-time entrepreneurs (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). In the long term the estimations for the proportion of entrepreneurs among the student population range from 20 to 40 per cent (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Ennöckl, 2002; Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Kailer, 2007a) – including part-time entrepreneurs. The proportion of potential entrepreneurs is significantly higher among PhD candidates (Bauer and Kailer, 2003) as well as postdoctorate working as scientific staff without tenure at German research institutions (Kriegesmann, 2000). Three factors play important roles and can be considered as ‘grouping variables’. The first group is composed of the differences in the fields of study. Above the average are business-related studies such as business administration, business law, electrical engineering and informatics (Welter and Heinemann, 2007) as well as business informatics. The second grouping variable is sex: GEM, ISCE and other studies show less motivation among women to become self-employed (Bosma and Harding, 2007; Fueglistaller et al., 2006). This gap is smaller among students (Josten et al., 2008) and declines in the course of their studies, particularly during the PhD curriculum (Welter and Heinemann, 2007; Kailer, 2007a). A survey by Josten et al. (2008) showed less professional experience and less market knowledge among female students. They tend to prefer an entrepreneurial part-time career or a career as a start-up business partner, with respect to knowledge intensive business fields. The third grouping variable is the team foundation: all surveys show that two-thirds to three-quarters of the students prefer a team foundation (BMBF, 2002, s. 13; Fueglistaller et al., 2006). Nevertheless, only a part of these team foundations actually takes place (Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Kailer, 2007a). This indicates problems in the search, selection, and matching processes. Almost 50 per cent of the interviewed students by Bauer and Kailer (2003) claim the lack of a business team partner. The high value of interdisciplinary team foundations is generally accepted (Franke et al., 2002; Fueglistaller et al., 2004) but the foundation of the company usually happens with colleagues from the same field of study or from personal networks (Ennöckl, 2002; Schwarz and Grieshuber, 2002). Welter and Heinemann (2007) underline the central role of trust in people from personal networks concerning start-up decisions. ISCE also indicated that only a small percentage of founder teams include external persons with practical experience (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). This results in a deficit of marketing, sales competence, and network contacts within the portfolio of the start-up team. This is particularly important because investment decisions of venture capitalists’ are strongly influenced by the perceived competence portfolio of the founder team.

258 3

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Discussion: proposals for the design of UEC

3.1 Organizational embedding Most universities prefer entrepreneurship activities that affect the campus. This is a major challenge for the question of the organizational integration of the department(s) responsible for EE. Entrepreneurship chairs are most often in business schools so that limited capacities prevent a wider approach to the topic (Schmude, 2001). The broadest effect is made possible with the implementation of a university-wide center for entrepreneurship, which is responsible for all faculties (Gibb, 2005; Welter and Heinemann, 2007; Lee and Wong, 2006; Moog, 2005). Included here is a discussion over the separation of tasks between a chair responsible for research and (under)graduate teaching, and an entrepreneurship center which focuses on outreach activities, further education, and consultation for start-ups and spin offs (Böhm, 2004). When recruiting new teaching staff, practical experience in entrepreneurship and consulting should be a core attribute. In this context the cooperation between entrepreneurs as educators and academic staff also becomes a central question. Enabling a regular exchange between university and practice also makes sense and can be done with sabbaticals or part-time entrepreneurs (EC, 2006a). Due to the often regional orientation of the programs and lecturers, an additional international network, such as the EECPCL program in the Harvard Business School or in German-speaking countries the G-Forum, is also beneficial. Even more important than the organizational set-up of entrepreneurship activities is the cooperation with the regional start-up infrastructure. An entrepreneurship department can serve as a mediator (Pleitner, 2001) and can run applied research projects for the regional network (for example, evaluations, needs analyses). 3.2 Evaluation Limited resources, such as subsidies and support programs, need to be used efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, a considerable number of entrepreneurship chairs are only funded for a limited period (Klandt et al., 2005). Therefore an evaluation of the outcome is urgently needed (McMullan et al., 2001; Schmude and Heumann, 2007). It has to be noted that evaluation concepts developed in the context of human resource management (HRM), management development and in-company training (for example, EasterbySmith, 1986; Flamholtz, 1986; House, 1967; Kurtz et al., 1984; Landsberg and Weiss, 1995; Lemke, 1995) are practically not used in EE. Kailer (2000) suggested a framework for EE interventions in the pre-start, start-up and development phases. Henry et al. (2003) developed a framework for the development of entrepreneurship training programs based on longitudinal surveys. Developing and implementing an UEC requires financial resources and staff, even if some services are provided for free from external partners (for example, guest lecturers). As the resources of universities are usually limited, the discussion over the redistribution of resources often leads to internal resistance and conflicts. The evaluation of programs provides important feedback for improvements for the training management. This also applies to alumni surveys concerning the needs for future support. Ex-post surveys and more elaborate evaluation designs can have economic consequences, therefore serving as arguments for the prolonging of measures.


259

However, it is questionable as to whether results of evaluation studies are really used during negotiations over the redistribution of internal university staff and resources. In the German-speaking realm, it turned out to be effective to integrate alumnientrepreneurs into the universities’ working groups, focusing on both future strategic positioning, and university and faculty development plans or curriculum design. This can be enhanced through systematic PR-activities focusing on alumni-entrepreneurs (for example, IUG, 2007; UnternehmerTUM, 2007). 3.3

Target groups

3.3.1 Defining strategic target groups Keeping in mind the manifold possible target groups and different levels of motivation of students (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Josten et al., 2008), it seems that it is not advisable to run just one uniform and obligatory EE program. Basically, support offers can be targeted to (potential) founders, startup entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs, (future) start-up consultants, trainers and coaches (banks, start-up centers, companies, venture capital companies, and technology centers). Additionally, there are offers for other important target groups (public relations experts, journalists, employees in lobby groups and political organizations) (usually described as EE in its broader sense). (Future) entrepreneurship researchers represent another target group (Brush et al., 2003; Johannisson and Veciana, 2008). ●

●

●

EE programs should concentrate on (potential) founders, entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs (Kirby, 2006). In terms of content, the programs should deal with the life cycle of the company as a whole, and not focus solely on the start-up phase. Additional modules (such as consulting) are useful for future start-up consultants. At the Hagen University for Distance Education, start-up consultants can earn a certificate for further education (Anderseck, 2001). Representatives of political organizations, journalists and opinion leaders could be addressed by (shorter) modules as well, as by indirect measures (for example, integration in expert networks, into research projects, or into teaching programs).

The concentration on target groups seems advantageous as an alumni study reveals that, the more students participate in entrepreneurship courses and other relevant services and events, the higher is the likelihood that they become entrepreneurs themselves (Kailer, 2005; Müller, 2008). 3.3.2 Concentration on persons and groups with high entrepreneurial motivation The chosen field of study, the progress of studies and the family background are influential factors on the individual entrepreneurial activity (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). Moreover, the teaching resources in the German-speaking countries are often limited. This implies a concentration on strategically selected target groups and courses of studies with a generally higher entrepreneurial motivation and more activities. The advantage of this approach is the higher possibility for an actual start-up of a business by graduates, which again can be used as models and testimonials for future students. Tools for (self)-assessment (for instance, Erpenbeck and von Rosenstiel, 2003; Heyse et al., 2004; Müller, 2007) are useful in identifying individuals with high entrepreneurial

260


potential. These persons are top priority target groups for additional support (Galloway et al., 2006). The significance of these tools is evident, as the individual attitude towards career prospects is the most important factor influencing the individual’s decision for self-employment (Fueglistaller et al., 2004). As far as scientific staff is concerned, a focus on staff with temporary contracts is plausible (Kriegesmann, 2000). If assessment prior to the courses, such as ‘picking winners’ is not possible within the course regulations, at least self-assessment tools should be offered. Also, that 3 to 6 per cent of entrepreneurially active students (Fueglistaller et al., 2006) or part-time entrepreneurs among the alumni can be targeted (Ennöckl, 2002). 3.3.3 Business successors Business succession is less popular among students than creating an original start-up (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). Possible reasons for this circumstance include: lack of business and leadership experience, problems with financing, and a lack of interesting businesses available for transfer. Moreover, the desire for the implementation of one’s own start-up idea is usually a source of strong motivation among students (Welter and Heinemann, 2007). Therefore, it makes sense to concentrate on alumni who already have respective work experience and to support the knowledge transfer between the successor and the person handing over the enterprise. Business succession should be a regular topic in graduate studies. Students from family-owned businesses tend to finish their course of studies before they think about taking over (Leodolter, 2005). Therefore, especially for these students, additional courses or support measures should be offered in their graduate studies. 3.3.4 Female students and entrepreneurs Female students tend to express a special need for individual coaching, networking and cross-mentoring (Josten et al., 2008). They often prefer a career as part-time entrepreneur or as partner in a start-up team. Here, experienced entrepreneurs and female entrepreneurs as role models can be helpful, along with persons trained in mentoring. Due to the demographic change, support measures for potential female entrepreneurs can have considerable impact on the number of start-ups (Gottschalk, 2008). 3.3.5 Graduates As most start-ups take place some years after graduation, the ongoing contact with, and support of, alumni is of highly strategic importance. This is underlined by the fact that compared to the Anglo-American area, relatively few alumni organizations exist in German-speaking countries (Moog, 2005; Wilson, 2004). In most cases these alumni centers do not offer training courses or other services for potential founders or successors (Haböck, 2007). Alumni predominantly stay in contact with the chairs and institutes where they studied (Holzer and Adametz, 2003; Thum-Kraft et al., 2007). Therefore entrepreneurship departments are advised to establish their own alumni network in addition to an already existing university-wide network. Doctorate candidates and university staff without tenure show especially high levels of entrepreneurial motivation (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Welter and Heinemann, 2007). These groups therefore should be particularly supported and addressed. The Austrian Academia 1Business program (mostly focused on the pre-seed phase), the German PFAU-Initiative and the UNIUN-Program organized by the University of Vienna’s Alumni association are all good examples of this.


261

Facing restricted resources in alumni centers in the German-speaking area, the mentoring of alumni and their start-ups requires cooperation between entrepreneurship institutes and the regional support infrastructure. These may include: the chamber of commerce, young entrepreneurs networks, start-up centers, incubators and venture capital funds. Connecting the existing alumni center with entrepreneurs and/or developing entrepreneurs clubs like the European Institute of Administrative Affairs (INSEAD) or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) will become a central task for universities in the coming years. 3.4

Key elements for the design and structure of courses

3.4.1 Tackling anticipated obstacles for business start-ups in the curriculum When planning an entrepreneurship curriculum, barriers anticipated by future entrepreneurs should be taken into consideration (Hannon, 2005) as well as the time span between the completion of studies and start-up activities. Therefore, first an improvement of the overall attitude toward entrepreneurship is the major goal. To do this, the course of studies should begin with a more general overview of entrepreneurship, supported by entrepreneurs as role models. For students with a more concrete interest in entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship, optional courses should be offered. Here, entrepreneurial topics, for example, financing and subsidies, should be dealt with more intensely. An overview of the support infrastructure is also of high importance, especially when a widespread information deficit in this field is considered. Also, problems with patent pending laws, and intellectual property rights can be taught in these courses. Providing massive amounts of information and knowledge hardly has an effect on the motivation to create a start-up (Franke and Lüthje, 2002). Therefore a more ‘hands on’ approach in teaching needs to be taken, such as the preparation of a business plan (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008a; Müller, 2008). Walter and Walter (2008) point out the utmost importance of the integration of practice-oriented courses in the curricula. In order to enable students to set up a professional network, venture capitalists and business angels should be included in these courses; as well as coaches and experts from the start-up-infrastructure. In particular, students and alumni who are either preparing their start-ups, or are already entrepreneurs, express a need for coaching and support during the start-up process; which can also be provided by the university. Further training for graduates and investments in spin-offs via an academic incubator are only a few of the possible options. 3.4.2 Support for generating start-up ideas and assessing their market potential The connections between a start-up idea, an already existing prototype of a product, and the intensity of the entrepreneurial considerations have all been well proven. Students as active entrepreneurs can be found in all courses of study and at all levels (Fueglistaller et al., 2006; Kailer, 2007a). According to Welter and Heinemann, (2007), their entrepreneurial intentions are usually strongly related to extra-curricular activities. Therefore students in every phase of their academic career should have access to relevant courses and workshops, consulting, instruments for assessing their competencies, entrepreneurial potential and start-up ideas as well as other support measures. Especially during studies of engineering or natural sciences, ideas and prototypes

262


are developed (for example, through project work or master thesis) without keeping the commercial application in mind. The development of products without keeping the needs of potential costumers in mind is considered a crucial obstacle in the field of high-technology start-ups (Stockinger, 2009). It is therefore essential to offer the possibility to analyse the market potential of the idea or product for all students interested in entrepreneurial activities. Clarifying the idea is effectively done through developing an opportunity plan. This forms the basis for writing a more detailed business plan in a later planning stage. This can also take place in an interdisciplinary course which combines students of engineering and entrepreneurship. 3.4.3 Establishing networks with entrepreneurs Stimuli from the environment and from work experience during the course of studies are of particular importance for the decision to become self-employed (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; Welter and Heinemann, 2007). The more intense the contact with entrepreneurs, the more contacts are established, and the more can be learned from these role models (Galloway et al., 2006). Field studies, trainee programs in start-up companies, projectbased activities, discussions and interviews are only a few possibilities to set up contacts between students and entrepreneurs. Undergraduate students should be confronted with entrepreneurs as testimonials or as case studies. Here it is of major importance that startup entrepreneurs as well as experienced entrepreneurs are used, so that each phase in the entrepreneurial life cycle is represented. Also, the discussions of business failures could provide important insights. Entrepreneurs and external experts as mentors prove to be especially useful for graduate students. In retrospect, interviews with alumni show a high estimation value for contact with entrepreneurs and start-up consultants during their studies. They also show particular value for any support concerning the expansion of their networks. Fostering the cooperation between university entrepreneurship centers and alumni networks and regional entrepreneurs’ networks (for instance, young entrepreneurs networks, junior chambers, chambers of commerce) will therefore be a major task for the future as the expansion of personal networks seems to be a prerequisite for the decision to become an entrepreneur (Blumberg, 2008). 3.4.4 Developing start-up teams with a broad competence portfolio Providing the framework conditions for initializing and accompanying start-up teams with diverse competencies is another major aspect of curriculum design. High-technology start-ups benefit especially from founding team members with business, engineering and legal backgrounds. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the creation of interdisciplinary teams of students and PhD candidates in the curriculum, as well as the integration of older and more experienced team members with business specific expertise. Derived from this, starting points include: ●

●

development of team competence by a corresponding methodical and didactic design of courses (for example, teamwork with regular reflection phases and team training, interdisciplinary projects) providing assessment of entrepreneurial competencies as well as studying and working styles of individuals and teams (Erpenbeck and von Rosenstiel, 2003; Heyse et al., 2004; Müller, 2007)

Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries ●

●

●

263

installing self-learning centers, where undergraduate, graduate, alumni, entrepreneurs and managers can continue their education cooperatively, of which Virtual Learning Resource Centre of the Ashridge Management School is a good example support by the university in the search for experienced team partners who can bring expertise, project, leadership experience, contacts and capital into the startup project coaching support in the phase of early development, since team conflicts are very likely to emerge here.

3.4.5 Modular structure of the program A modular design of EE is recommended, as it is more easily integrated into different curricula. This way individual interests and previous knowledge of students can also be taken into account. Especially in further training a wide range of learning options from short workshops to postgraduate entrepreneurship MBAs can be offered. Students and alumni alike prefer courses bearing credit points which lead to a recognized certificate (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Ennöckl, 2002; Welter and Heinemann, 2007). Interdisciplinary teamwork should therefore bear credit points (according to the European Credit Transfer System) for every participating student regardless of the field of study. Prior work experience as well as relevant further training in enterprises can also be accredited (ABWF, 2006). This trend is enhanced by the Bologna Process. The timing of these modules is not only a major topic for students, but also for graduates who are already working. Attending some sort of a summer school for entrepreneurs is hardly possible for someone already (self-)employed, whereas this might attract graduate students. Additionally, modules and materials for self-learning can reduce time constraints. The ‘start-up management’ modules of the Hagen University of Distance Education serve as a good examples here. 3.4.6 Supporting entrepreneurial learning with the help of external experts and entrepreneurs Different target groups with varying resources in time and money require different didactical approaches (Wilson, 2004). The learning forms should be adjusted to the needs of adults in general and especially to the needs of entrepreneurs. Self-controlled learning, teamwork, practical projects and ongoing reflection/coaching of one’s own efforts are just a few examples (EC/Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, 2008; EC Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry, 2008; Moog, 2005; Rae, 2007). However, this requires an experienced and well-trained teaching staff. Competences in consulting and coaching, however, are often not common among the teaching staff at universities. Therefore, persons with entrepreneurial experience as well as experienced coaches from start-up related institutions like banks, incubators and venture capitalists, should be part of the staff. How these people are recruited and integrated into programs is of central importance. Apart from team-teaching or the involvement of entrepreneurs as guest lecturers or project coaches, a long-term appointment as Entrepreneurs in Residence at the University of Cambridge (Vyakarnam, 2005) or as Professors of Practice (Gibb, 2005) seems particularly efficient. These efforts need to be combined with internationally oriented further education (such as the EECPCL program of Harvard Business School and EFER) as well as peer-mentoring, self development and further training within the university.

264


3.5 Services and support measures In addition to (modular) courses, a broad range of other support measures and services should be offered. In general, this support also must take the different levels of motivation and information of students and alumni into consideration. The services and offers need to cover the whole course of study. Only a continuous debate of topics in the field of self-employment and entrepreneurship can reduce person-related barriers, such as the fear of failure. On the other hand, content-oriented obstacles that may prevent setting up one’s own company (for instance, lack of financing, partners, technical expertise) become more obvious and therefore can be addressed in the future (BMBF, 2002). The timing of these support measures in the course of study is a central topic. The closer the students and alumni are to their own start-up, the more practical and individually designed measures are demanded (Bauer and Kailer, 2003; Welter and Heinemann, 2007; Kailer, 2007a). This means that undergraduate students should be given a general overview, as well as testimonials as motivators. This should be followed by business planning as one of the central aspects of EE. Students in later phases of their studies and entrepreneurially active students and alumni should be given additional individual consulting, coaching, as well as support in setting up and expanding their business network. Again, cooperation with institutions of the regional start-up infrastructure is likely to be fruitful. In academic (pre)incubators the quality of the consulting measures seems to be connected with the young entrepreneurs’ decision to expand their businesses (Klee, 2008). 4 Research questions The review of empirical findings as well as the suggested proposals for the design of a UEC point out several topics for future research. They can be structured in two main areas. First, the EE research needs to focus on the mentioned target groups to be able to refine the UEC by integrating their specific needs. The impact of diverse course designs should be evaluated. For instance, students who are potential business successors often have professional experience due to their work in family businesses. Furthermore, they often plan to take over their family businesses soon after graduation so that the succession planning takes place during their studies. These potential successors obviously are very interesting team members (and/or live cases) for students’ project teams, too. Due to time constraints, self-directed learning concepts and interdisciplinary teams as well as the integration of full-time employed students, student-entrepreneurs and external mentors in project teams will be highly important in the future. Different settings should be evaluated to analyse their respective impact. The changing roles of the academic staff also has to be focused: which non-technical competencies (for instance, in the field of coaching and mentoring) will be necessary in the future, and how can they be developed within academic staff? This also addresses the question of the most efficient forms of cooperation between external experts and entrepreneurs with tenured staff at the university. Second, EE research has to re-evaluate its research methods. The relevance and necessity of more longitudinal studies have to be clearly acknowledged to obtain more detailed information concerning the impact of diverse measures integrated in the UECs. The refinement of the UECs with regard to strategically selected target groups also tackles the research method question. Future research should focus also on qualitative methods and case studies in order to get an in-depth understanding of the quality and long-


265

term impact of the diverse measures – not only before the creation of a company, but even more after the decision to start up. This would, for instance, address the needs of academic spin-offs and high-technology start-ups better than a quantitative approach. Note 1. This chapter is a revised and updated version of the article: Kailer, N. (2009), ‘Entrepreneurship education: empirical findings and proposals for the design of entrepreneurship education concepts at universities in German-speaking countries’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(2), 1–31.

References Achleitner, A.-K., C. Kaserer, S. Jarchow and K. Wilson (2007), ‘Entrepreneurship education in German speaking Europe’, Working Paper no. 2007–01, Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies, Technical University Munich. Anderseck, K. (2001), ‘Der Gründerberater – Elemente zu seiner Professionalisierung’, IGA-Zeitschrift für Klein- und Mittelunternehmen, 49 (2001/4), 256–72. Arbeitsgemeinschaft betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung e.V. (ABWF) (ed.) (2006), Kompetenzen bilanzieren, Münster: Waxmann. Badelt, C. (2004), Die unternehmerische Universität: Herausforderung oder Widerspruch in sich? Wien: Picus. Bauer, U. and N. Kailer (2003), ‘Gründungsneigung von Technikern am Beispiel der Technischen Universität Graz und ausgewählten Wirtschaftsingenieurstudiengängen’, BWL Education & Research Series No. 7. Graz. Bergmann, H. and F. Halter (2006), International Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship – Länderbericht Liechtenstein 2006, St Gallen: KMU-HSG. Berwert, A., E. Lüthi, A. Leu, D. Künzle and H. Rütter (2004), ‘Studieren – Forschen – Unternehmen gründen – THISS’, Synthesis Report No. 25, Bern und Aarau. Blumberg, B. (2008), ‘An inquiry in the role of personal networks for starting a new business’, proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference, 6–7 November, Dortmund. Böhm, J. (2004), ‘Gründungsförderung an Hochschulen im internationalen Vergleich’, thesis, University of Linz. Böhm, D. (2008), ‘Gründungsneigung und Gründungsaktivitäten von HochschulabsolventInnen’, thesis, University of Linz. Bosma, N. and R. Harding (2007), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor GEM 2006, Babson College and London Business School (eds), Babson Park, MA and London. Botham, R. and C. Mason (2007), ‘Good practice in enterprise development in UK higher education’, National Council for Graduate Enterpreneurship Research Report 4/2007, Birmingham. Brush, C., I. Duhaime, W. Gartner, A. Stewart, J. Katz, M. Hitt, S. Alvarez, G. Meyer, and S. Venkataraman (2003), ‘Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship’, Journal of Management, 29 (3), 309–31. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (ed.) (2002), ‘Studierende und Selbständigkeit – Ergebnisse der EXIST-Studierendenbefragung’, EXIST – Studien No. 2, Bonn. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft (BMWi) (ed.) (n.d.), EXIST – Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft, available at: http:///www.exist.de (accessed 5 June 2009). Burgoyne, J. and R. Stuart (1978), ‘Management development programmes: underlying assumptions about learning’, in J. Burgoyne and R. Stuart (eds), Management Development: Context and Strategies, Westmead: Gower, pp. 93–114. Carlsson, B. (2005), ‘Universities, entrepreneurship and public policy: lessons from abroad’, in S. Shane (ed.), Economic Development through Entrepreneurship: Government, University and Business Linkages, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 198–218. Charlton, K. (2005), Executive Education: Evaluating the Return on Investment – Bringing the Client Voice into the Debate, Berkhamsted: International University Consortium for Executive Education and Ashridge Business School. Charney, A. and G. Libecap (2000), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona 1985–1999’, revised final report, Tucson. Chlosta, S., H. Klandt and J. Tobias (2006), German Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship, Oestrich-Winkel: European Business School. Cone, J. (2005), ‘Teaching entrepreneurship in colleges and universities’, in Kauffman Thoughtbook 2005, Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, pp. 72–9. Easterby-Smith, M. (1986), Evaluation of Management Education, Training and Development, Aldershot: Gower.

266


Easterby-Smith, M. and M. Tanton (1988), ‘Strategies and faculty development in business schools and management development institutions: an international study’, CSML Working Paper, University of Lancaster. Egeln, J., H. Fryges and S. Gottschalk (2007), ‘Dynamik von akademischen Spinoff-Gründungen in Österreich’, Discussion Paper No. 07–021, ZEW Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim. Ennöckl, J. (2002), ‘Hemmende und fördernde Faktoren der Unternehmensgründung durch Studierende’, thesis, University of Linz. Erpenbeck, J. and L. von Rosenstiel (eds) (2003), Handbuch Kompetenzmessung Stuttgart, Stuttgart: SchaefferPöschel Verlag. EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry (2008a), ‘Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe’, Bruxelles, December, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_education (accessed 2 January 2010). EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry (2008b), Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe, Appendix B: Good Practice Examples of Entrepreneurship Education in European Higher Education Institutions, ECON/NICOS/FOR A, Bruxelles, December, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_education (accessed 2 January 2010). EU Commission/DG Enterprise and Industry (2008c), Survey of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe, Appendix A: Table Report, Bruxelles, December, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_education (accessed 2 January 2010). Euler, H.-P. (2004), ‘Studienwahl und Berufsschicksal von Absolventen und Absolventinnen technischnaturwissenschaftlicher Studienrichtungen’, Trauner Universitätsverlag, Linz. European Commission (EC) (2002a), ‘High tech SME in Europe’, European Network for SME Research No. 6, Brussels. European Commission (EC) (2002b), University spin-outs in Europe – overview and good practice, Innovation Paper Series No. 21, Brussels. European Commission (EC) (2006a), Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Learning – Final Proceedings, Oslo: EC. European Commission EC (2006b), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation, COM(2006) 208 final, 10.5.2006, Brussels. European Commission (EC) Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General (2008), ‘Best procedure project: entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business-studies – final report of the expert group’, Bruxelles. European Commission (EC) Enterprise Directorate-General (2004), ‘Final report of the expert group “Education for Entrepreneurship”’, Bruxelles. European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research (EFER) (ed.) (2007), ‘29 centers of dynamic entrepreneurship’, unpublished interim report, Bruxelles. Fayolle A., B. Gailly and N. Lassas-Clerc (2005), ‘Capturing variations in attitudes and intentions: a longitudinal study to assess the pedagogical effectiviness of entrepreneurship teaching programmes’, Cahiers de Recherche No. 2005/11, EM Lyon, Lyon. Flamholtz, E. (1986), Human Resource Accounting, San Francisco, CA and London: Jossey-Bass. Frank, H., C. Korunka and M. Lueger (1999), Unternehmerische Haltung und Gründungswissen. Eine Bestandsaufnahme an österreichischen Universitäten und Fachhochschulen, Vienna: University of Economics. Frank, H., C. Korunka and M. Lueger (2002), Entrepreneurial Spirit, Vienna: WUV Universitätsverlag. Franke, N. and C. Lüthje (2002), ‘Studentische Unternehmensgründungen – dank oder trotz Förderung?’, Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 2002/3, 96–112. Franke, N. and C. Lüthje (2004), ‘Entrepreneurial intentions of business students: a benchmarking study’, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. Fueglistaller, U. and F. Halter (2006), Swiss Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship 2006. KMU-HSG (ed.). St. Gallen. Fueglistaller, U., F. Halter and R. Hartl (2004), ‘Unternehmertum im universitären Umfeld’, Internationales Gewerbearchiv, 52 (1/2004), 15–31. Fueglistaller, U., H. Klandt and F. Halter (2006), ‘International Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship’, KMU-HSG Swiss Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of St Gallen and European Business School, St Gallen and Oestrich-Winkel. Fueglistaller, U., H. Klandt, F. Halter and C. Müller (2009), ‘An international comparison of entrepreneurship among students. International report of the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey’, KMU-HSG Swiss Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of St Gallen and European Business School, St Gallen and Oestrich-Winkel.


267

Galloway L., S. Kelly and W. Keogh (2006), ‘Identifying entrepreneurial potential in students’, NCGE Working Paper 6/2006, Birmingham, available at: www.ncge.com (accessed 5 October 2009). Garavan, T. and B. O’Cinneide (1994), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 18 (8), 3–12 (Part 1) and 18 (11), 13–21 (Part 2). Gibb, A. (2005), ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university: entrepreneurship education as a lever for change’, NCGE Policy Paper 3, Birmingham, available at: www.ncge.com (accessed 4 October 2009). Göthner, M., U. Cantner, M. Obschonka and R. Silbereisen (2008), ‘Approaching the agora – determinants of scientists’s intention to persue academic entrepreneurship’, Proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference, 6–7 November, Dortmund. Gottschalk, S. (2008), ‘Die Auswirkungen des geographischen Wandels auf das Gründungsgeschehen in Deutschland’, Proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference, 6–7 November, Dortmund. Gutschelhofer, A. and N. Kailer (2002), ‘Stiftungslehrstuhl für Unternehmensgründung an der Universität Linz – Konzept und aktueller Realisierungsstand’, in S. Buchinger (ed.), Gründerland Österreich, Wien: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit/Center Wirtschaftspolitik pp. 121–35. Haböck, D. (2007), ‘Beiträge österreichischer Alumnivereinigungen zur Kundenbindung in Hochschulen und zur Förderung von Unternehmensgründungen aus Hochschulen’, thesis, University of Linz. Hannon, P. (2005), ‘The journey from student to entrepreneur – a review of the existing research into graduate entrepreneurship’, NCGE Policy Paper 4, Birmingham, available at: www.ncge.com (accessed 5 October 2009). Harms, R. and D. Grichnik (2007), ‘Zur Zukunft der deutschsprachigen Entrepreneurshipforschung’, Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship (ZfKE), 55 (2007/4), 266–75. Henry, C., F. Hill and C. Leitch (2003), Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate. Heyse, V., J. Erpenbeck and H. Max (eds) (2004), Kompetenzen erkennen, bilanzieren und entwickeln, Münster: Waxmann. Hindle, K. (2007), ‘Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, vol. 1, pp. 104–26. Holzer, F. and C. Adametz (2003), TUG-AbsolventInnenbefragung 2003, Graz: University of Technology. House, R. (1967), Management Development: Design, Evaluation and Implementation, Ann Arbor, MI: Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of Michigan. Hytti, U. and P. Kuopusjärvi (2004), Evaluating and Measuring Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Education: Methods, Tools and Practices, Turku: Small Business Institute. IGW-HSG and START (2003), Swiss Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship, St Gallen: IGW-HSG/START. Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn (IfM) (2004), ‘IfM Bonn untersucht Existenzgründungsklima an deutschen Hochschulen’, available at: http://www.ifm-bonn.org/ergebnis/100nf.htm, 8.11.2004 (accessed 10 October 2009). Institut für Unternehmensgründung und Unternehmensentwicklung (IUG) (2007), GründerInnen und NachfolgerInnen im Portrait, Linz: University of Linz. Isfan, K., P. Moog and U. Backes-Gellner (2005), ‘Die Rolle der Hochschullehrer für Gründungen aus deutschen Hochschulen’, in A.-K. Achleitner, H. Klandt, L. Koch and K.-I. Voigt (eds), Jahrbuch Entrepreneurship – Gründungsforschung und Gründungsmanagement 2004/05, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Verlag pp. 339–62. Johannisson, B. and J. Veciana (2008), ‘The internationalization of postgraduate entrepreneurship education: the case of EDP’, in H. Frank, H. Neubauer and D. Rössl (eds), Beiträge zur Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Klein- und Mittelbetriebe, in Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship (ZfKE), Sonderheft 7, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. pp. 57–74. Josten, M., M., van Elkan, J. Laux and M. Thomm (2008), ‘Gründungsquell Campus (I)’, Trierer Arbeitspapiere zur Mittelstandsökonomie No. 12, A. Schmidt (ed.), Trier. Kailer, N. (2000), ‘Gründung und Frühentwicklung von Unternehmen: Leistungsspektrum der Gründungshelfer, Kooperationsprobleme und Ansatzpunkte zur Verbesserung’, in N. Kailer, H. Pernsteiner and R. Schauer (eds), Initiativen zur Unternehmensgründung und – entwicklung, Vienna: Linde, pp. 39–56. Kailer, N. (2005), ‘Unternehmensgründung und – übernahme durch HochschulabsolventInnen’, ibwMitteilungen (2005/4), pp. 1–10, available at: www.ibw.at (accessed 10 March 2010). Kailer, N. (2007a), ‘Gründungspotenzial und -aktivitäten von Studierenden an österreichischen Hochschulen – Austrian Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship’, IUG Working Paper Series No. 6, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Organizational Development, University of Linz, available at: http://www.isce.ch (accessed 12 March 2010). Kailer, N. (2007b), ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education’, in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in

268


Entrepreneurship Education – A Contextual Perspective, vol. 2, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 221–43. Kailer, N. and K Sokolish (1999), ‘Auswahlverhalten, Beweggründe, hemmende und fördernde Faktoren des Studiums im FH-Studiengang Unternehmensführung für die mittelständische Wirtschaft’, final report, Vienna. Kailer, N. and G. Weiss (2005), ‘Unternehmensnachfolge in kleinen und mittleren Familienunternehmen in Oberösterreich’, in R. Schauer, N. Kailer and B. Feldbauer-Durstmüller (eds), Mittelständische Unternehmen – Probleme der Unternehmensnachfolge, Linz: Trauner, pp. 9–116. Kailer, N., D. Böhm and R. Zweimüller (2010), ‘Unternehmerisches Potenzial von AbsolventInnen der Johannes Kepler Universität Linz – Ergebnisse einer Online-Erhebung bei JKU-AbsolventInnen’, IUG Working Paper Series No. 6, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Organizational Development, University of Linz. Kailer, N., H. Pernsteiner and R. Schauer (eds) (2000), Initiativen zur Unternehmensgründung und -entwicklung – Konzeptionelle Überlegungen und Fördermaßnahmen auf dem Prüfstand, Vienna: Linde Verlag. Katz, J. (2004), 2004 Survey of Endowed Positions in Entrepreneurship and Related Fields in the United States, Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Kerst, C. and K.-H. Minks (2005), Selbständigkeit und Unternehmensgründung von Hochschulabsolventen fünf Jahre nach dem Studium, Hannover: HIS-Projektbericht. Kirby, D. (2006), ‘Creating enterpreneurial universities: a consideration’, NCGE Working Paper 5/2006, Birmingham, available at: www.ncge.com. Klandt, H., L. Koch, and B. Knaup (2005), FGF Report Gründungs-Professuren 2004, Bonn: Förderkreis Gründungs-Forschung. Klee, E. (2008), ‘Eine empirische Analyse zu Präinkubatoren deutscher Hochschulen’, Proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference. 6–7 November, Dortmund. Knuth, A. (2008), ‘Koordination der Gründungsförderung im Wissenschafts- und Hochschulbereich’, Proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference, 6–7 November, Dortmund. Koch, L. (2003), ‘Unternehmerausbildung an Hochschulen’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 2/2003, 25–45. Koch, L. and T. Kautonen (2005), ‘Organizing new venture support in regional networks: Exploring evidence from “EXIST-Entrepreneurs from Universities” in Germany’, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13, 127–44. Kriegesmann, B. (2000), ‘Unternehmensgründungen aus der Wissenschaft’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 70 (4/2000), 397–414. Kurtz, H.-J., A. Marcotty and R. Stiefel (1984), Neue Evaluierungskonzepte in der Management-Andragogik, Munich: Edition Academic. Landsberg, G. von and R. Weiss (ed.) (1995), Bildungs-Controlling, 2nd edn, Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Lee, L. and Wong, P. (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship education – a compendium of related issues,’ in S. Parker (ed.), The Life Cycle of Entrepreneurial Ventures, New York: Springer, pp. 79–106. Lemke, S. (1995), Transfermanagement, Göttingen: VAP. Leodolter, M. (2005), ‘Universitäts-AbsolventInnen als Unternehmensgründer und – übernehmer’, thesis, University of Linz. Lucas W. and S. Cooper (2004), ‘Enhancing self-efficacy to enable entrepreneurship: The case of CMI’s Connections’, MIT Sloan Working Paper 4489–04, MIT Sloan School of Management. Mayrhofer, W., M. Meyer and J. Steyrer (2005), Macht?Erfolg?Reich?Glücklich? – Einflussfaktoren auf Karrieren, Vienna: Linde. McKeown, J., C.Millman, S. Sursani, K. Smith and L. Martin (2006), ‘UK graduate enterpreneurship education in England, Wales and Scotland’, NCGE Working Paper 30/2006, Birmingham. McMullan, W., J. Chrisman and K. Vesper (2001), ‘Some problems in using subjective measures of effectiveness to evaluate entrepreneurial assistance programs’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26 (1), 37–54. Meka, R. (2005), Wissens-und technologieorientiertes Gründunsgeschehen, Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Moog, P. (2005), Good Practice in der Entrepreneurship-Ausbildung – Versuch eines internationalen Vergleichs, Bonn: Förderkreis Gründungs-Forschung. Müller, G (2007), ‘Fragebogen zur Diagnose unternehmerischer Potenziale (F-DUP)’, extended version, Innovate Testcenter Landau, http://testcenter.innovate.de (accessed 10 February 2010). Müller, S. (2008), ‘Der Einfluß von Lehrinhalten und – methoden auf die unternehmerische Intention von Studierenden’, Proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference, 6–7, November, Dortmund. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Working/Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development (OECD) (2007), ‘Evaluation of programmes concerning education for entrepreneurship. Proposed project plan’, WPSMEE 31st Session, 29–30 May, Tokyo.


269

Otten, C. (2000), Unternehmensgründungen aus Kölner Hochschulen, Cologne: Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeografisches Institut der Universität zu Köln. Pinkwart, A. (2002), ‘Einflussfaktoren der Gründungsneigung von Studierenden – Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung’, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn, http://www.ifm-bonn.org/assets/documents/ Aufsatz-3-22001.pdf (accessed 5 March 2010). Pittaway, L. and P. Hannon (2007), ‘Institutional strategies for developing enterprise education: a conceptual analysis’, NCGE Working Paper 037/2007, Birmingham. Pleitner, H.-J. (2001), ‘Entrepreneurship – Mode oder Motor?’, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 7 (10), 1145–59. Rae, D. (2007), Entrepreneurship – from Opportunity to Action, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Richter, J. (2000), ‘StudentInnen und Unternehmensgründung’, thesis, University of Linz. Schmude, J. (2001), ‘Gründungsforschung und Unternehmerausbildung an Hochschulen’, Zeitschrift für Klein- und Mittelunternehmen (ZfKE), 49 (2001/2), 89–104. Schmude, J. and S. Heumann (2007), ‘Vom Studenten zum Unternehmer: Welche Universität bietet die besten Chancen?’, Ranking 2007, University of Regensburg. Schwarz, E. and E. Grieshuber (2002), ‘Unternehmensgründung als Berufsalternative österreichischer Studierender’, in S. Buchinger (ed.), Gründerland Österreich, Vienna: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit/Center Wirtschaftspolitik, pp. 169–89. Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship – the Individual-Opportunity Nexus, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Shane S. (2005), Academic Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Slembeck T. (2005), ‘Unternehmensgründung und Selbständigkeit: Wie steht es um die Absolventen der ZFH?’, ZHW-Info 23–05, 22–7. Solomon, G., S. Duffy and A. Tarabishy (2002), ‘The State of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States: A Nationwide Survey and Analysis’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1, 65–86. Stampfl, C. and U. Hytti (2002), ‘Entrepreneurship als Herausforderung an das Bildungswesen. Ansätze in Österreich und europäischer Vergleich’, ibw-Schriftenreihe No. 123, Wien. Sternberg, R., U. Brixy and C. Hundt (2007), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Länderbericht Deutschland, Leibniz Universität Hannover and Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB) München. Stockinger, A. (2010), ‘Entrepreneurship Education für technisch-naturwissenschaftliche Studienrichtungen: Empirische Erhebung und Modellbildung’, Interim Report, Institute for Entrepreneurship, University of Linz. Storey, D. (2000), ‘Six steps to heaven: evaluating the impact of public policies to support small businesses in developed economies’, in D. Sexton and H. Landström (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 177–93. Thierstein, A., B. Wilhelm and H. Behrend (2002), Gründerzeit: Unternehmensgründungen von Absolventen der Ostschweizer Hochschulen, Bern: Haupt Verlag. Thum-Kraft M., C. Falter, C. Gahleitner, A. Stockinger and L. Wöss (2007), ‘Betriebliche Kompetenzentwicklung in Kooperation von Hochschulen und Wirtschaft’, IBW-Schriftenreihe 136, Vienna. Twaalfhoven, B (2007), ‘Breeding European gazelles – the role of universities’, presentation at the EFMD Annual Meeting 11–12 June, Brussels. Twaalfhoven, B. and K. Wilson (2004), ‘Breeding more gazelles – the role of European universities’, European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research (ed.), available at: http://www.efer.eu/web/pdf/RP-Breeding% 20Gazelles_TheRoleofUniversities.pdf (accessed 15 March 2010). Twaalfhoven, B., W. Suen and J. Prats (2000), ‘Entrepreneurship Education and its Funding: A comparison between Europe and the United States’, presentation to the European Business Summit, EFER, Brussels. UnternehmerTUM (ed.) (2004), ‘Unternehmerkultur-Index 2004 – Befragung unter Studierenden und wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern der Technischen Universität München’, Munich. UnternehmerTUM (ed.) (2007), Kreativität – Teamgeist – Innovation – Eigeninitiative, 3rd edn, Munich: Zentrum für Unternehmertum an der Technischen Universität München. Voigt, E. (2004), Gründungsbereitschaft und Gründungsqualifizierung – Ergebnisse der Studentenbefragungen an der TU Ilmenau, Ilmenau: University of Technology Ilmenau. Vyakarnam, S. (2005), ‘To inspire, inform and help implement – the role of enterpreneurship education’, second AGSE International – Entrepreneurship Teaching Exchange, 14–16 February, Melbourne. Wallau, F. (2008), ‘Die Bedeutung von Unternehmensberatern für den Mittelstand’, Vortrag zum 1, Mittelstandstag des Zentrums für empirische Mittelstandsforschung, 21 August, Hannover, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung Bonn. Walter, S. and A. Walter (2008), ‘Universitäre Gründungsförderung: Direkter und/oder moderierender Einfluss auf studentische Gründungsintentionen?’, Proceedings of the G-Forum 12th Annual Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Conference, 6–7 November, Dortmund.

270


Weaver, M., P. Dickson and G. Solomon (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship and education: what is known and not known about the links between education and entrepreneurial activity’, in The Small Business Economy for Data Year 2005 – A Report to the President, Washington: US Government Printing Office, pp. 113–55. Welter, F. and D. Heinemann (2007), ‘Gründerstudie 06/07 der Universität Siegen – Auf dem Weg zur Unternehmer-Uni’, Beiträge zur KMU-Forschung Nr 5, PRO KMU, Siegen. Wilson, K. (2004), Enterpreneurship Education at European Universities and Business Schools – Results of a Joint EFER/EFMD Pilot Survey, Brussels: European Foundation for Entrepreneurship Research (EFER). Wilson K. (2007), ‘Dynamic entrepreneurship: the role of universities’, presentation to the EU Expert Group Meeting 23 May, Bruxelles.


271

Appendix 16.1: components of a university entrepreneurship education concept (UEC) Vision, mission, policy ● ● ● ●

Mission statement concerning ‘entrepreneurial university’ General program philosophy Commitment to continuous evaluation and development of the concept University and Faculty Development Policy

Strategic decisions Form of structural embeddedness of EE unit(s) HRM aspects ●

●

Selection criteria and procedures, development planning and career paths teaching staff (temporary and permanent contracts), (interdisciplinary) team composition and cooperation of academic staff with external lecturers Inclusion of external experts, that is, from incubators, VC companies, banks and start-up centers and inclusion of entrepreneurs as educators (as testimonials, lecturers, coaches or mentors)

Framework conditions at the university ● ● ● ● ● ●

Regulations concerning additional employments of staff, patents and invention rights Salary scheme, contracts, rewards, performance assessment, career paths for staff with/without tenure Regulations concerning credits, for instance, for (prior) practical experience for students and staff, for work in interdisciplinary courses, for own start-up Financing of the EE activities (for instance, government, companies, banks, alumni organization) Cost regulation for further education, coaching and additional support (subsidized program, self-financing by participants) Cooperation with VC funds, pump-priming subsidies for spin-offs,, university as an associate of spin-offs

Internal and external cooperation ●

●

●

Identification of strategic partners on local and international level for EE (companies, alumni-entrepreneurs, young entrepreneurs networks, chamber of commerce, bank, start-up centers, venture capital companies, incubators) Identification of strategic partners within the university (other departments and chairs, alumni center, placement center, students union, junior chambers, studentrun organizations like AIESEC or student consulting groups Choice of type of cooperation (informal network, coordination unit)

272


Target groups ● ● ●

Undergraduate, graduate, alumni, enterprises, others outreach activities University-wide activity or focus on certain fields of study/faculties Cooperation with other universities, corporate and company universities

Duration of support ● ● ●

Undergraduate, graduate and post graduate studies Further training, coaching and support for alumni and spin-off Either focus on particular phase (awareness, stimulation, start-up, growth, business succession) or support for the complete life cycle of companies

Research in the field of entrepreneurship ● ●

Basic and applied research Feedback loops of research results into teaching programs and support network

Program planning and curricula design Educational goals ● ● ● ●

Raising awareness and creating a positive attitudes towards self-employment and fostering entrepreneurship as an attractive career option Assessing one’s entrepreneurial abilities Development of commercial and technical competencies for business planning, establishing and running a start-up or a business succession Development of soft skills (for instance, sales, negotiation, team building, leadership, networking)

Programs and course management ●

●

Planning principles (guidelines for needs analysis, admission criteria and procedure, program planning, program delivery, examinations, strategies for support of learning transfer, evaluation and participant tracking, contact with alumni) Inclusion of external partners (for instance, experts, alumni, entrepreneurs)

Range of learning forms ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Courses and workshops, (also interdisciplinary) Guest speakers Field studies and field projects Case studies Distance learning Self-learning packages Self-development groups

Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries Additional support and services, outreach activities ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Consulting, coaching, mentoring, career consulting Further training, conferences, self-development groups Assessment and self-assessment Matching of potential partners and team-building activities Network of alumni-entrepreneurs Contacts to business partners, banks, VC Financial support, co-ownership of spin-offs, access to VC capital Subsistence allowance for young entrepreneurs during start-up phase Access to infrastructure (office, secretarial assistance).

273

17 The role of an entrepreneurial learning team in creating an enterprise culture in a university David Rae, Simon Gee and Robert Moon

Introduction The ‘entrepreneurial university’ is often cited as a desirable and achievable goal: but this raises the question of how such large and complex organizations become entrepreneurial? The role of the enterprising academic is generally overlooked, although many academics work, often as lone voices, to bring about cultural change. This chapter explores this through the case of an entrepreneurial learning team at the University of Derby who ‘acted as entrepreneurs’ over a five-year period to stimulate a culture of enterprising learning across the university, and generates insights on cultural change within a modern regional university. The chapter explores the following questions: 1. 2. 3.

How can a university develop an entrepreneurial culture? How can entrepreneurial teachers stimulate cultural change? Are there generalizable learning points from the experience of the University of Derby?

The chapter provides a brief critique of the literature on ‘the entrepreneurial university’ which has emerged since Slaughter and Leslie (1997) and Clark (1998) introduced the concept, and questions its utility given the wide range of enterprising activities and new approaches which have flourished in many universities since then. The case of the University of Derby is used to examine the process of change towards developing an enterprising culture within a university, in the wider context of organizational, pedagogical, systemic and behavioural changes and conflicts. It is suggested that the entrepreneurial team can play a key role in connecting the different agendas through which the processes of change towards an enterprising university operate. The ‘story of the team’ was captured using the participants’ accounts of their learning as reflective practitioners, together with feedback from students, staff and external actors. Data from Science Enterprise Challenge (SEC) and Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) funded activities illustrate the growth in enterprise activity. The case uses action learning as a sense-making process in organizational change, and features a ‘critical incident’ in the change process, as well as the ‘practical theory’ which the team developed from their shared experiences in engendering academic enterprise. The entrepreneurial university in the literature This brief review summarizes understandings from the literature of ‘the entrepreneurial university’ and the accompanying role and development of enterprising pedagogy. It does not examine the growing literature on enterprise education ably surveyed by others 274

The role of an entrepreneurial learning team

275

(for example, Hannon 2004; Pittaway and Cope, 2005) but rather locates the most relevant points of connection with this. The concept of ‘the entrepreneurial university’ has gained currency since Clark (1998) proposed five cases of European higher education institutions (HEIs) as exemplars. Clark proposed that entrepreneurial universities were different, consisting of those that had ‘willed themselves to change, differ[ing] systemically from those that remain entirely encapsulated in a traditional role’ (Clark, 1998, p. 3). ‘An entrepreneurial university . . . actively seeks to innovate in how it goes about its business . . . institutional entrepreneurship can be seen as both process and outcome’ (Clark, 1998, p. 4). Clark proposed that entrepreneurial universities transformed themselves through a minimum of five elements: a strengthened steering core; an expanded developmental periphery; a diversified funding base; a stimulated academic heartland; and an integrated entrepreneurial culture embracing change and transforming beliefs (Clark, 1998). Critiques of Clark’s work have emerged as well as institutional studies of ‘entrepreneurial universities’. Deem (2001) argued that the concept of the entrepreneurial university was simply a manifestation of the ‘new management’ prevalent in the public sector, and the cases cited by Clark were based on selective ‘heroic interviews’ which did not reflect the reality of those institutions. Rather than there being a ‘convergence’ towards entrepreneurial universities on a global scale, local cultural, economic and social factors remained influential in shaping the identity and nature of each HEI. Soares and Amaral (1999) suggested that the overriding concern for universities was to become both more innovative and able to generate new sources of non-governmental income through structural and cultural change. However other writers reinforced Clark’s approach. Kristensen’s study of Copenhagen Business School becoming a ‘learning organization’ included the strengthened steering core, an international profile based on a regional foundation, an expanded partnership with the business community, and becoming a learning university (Kristensen, 1999). It undertook strategic staff development, continuous quality development, developed business research centres and science parks, and approaches to lifelong learning, to become a more competitive international institution. Other institutional studies of Catalonia (Solé-Parallada et al., 2001), Italy (Lazzeroni and Piccalaga, 2003), Poland (Pawlowski, 2003) and Germany (Schulte, 2004) illustrated how European HEIs were, in various ways, using the concept of the entrepreneurial university to adapt to a changing environment. It is clear that the concept of the entrepreneurial university became influential in the debate over university reform and their future direction and focus, especially in the interaction with European Union (EU) policies on knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship and higher education. Significantly, the Gelsenkirchen Declaration on institutional entrepreneurial management proposed that: The emergence of the European Higher Education Area and that of the European Research Area is providing European higher education institutions with new opportunities to assert themselves both as teaching and as research institutions, which generate and transmit knowledge, thus contributing to social and economic development and cohesion. Such a combined role may become increasingly possible once universities improve their management in order to become more entrepreneurial and to include entrepreneurial studies in their curricula so as to train and to motivate students to become increasingly entrepreneurial in their future careers. (Gelsenkirchen, 2003, p. 241)

276


This declaration suggested that a new type of HEI was emerging, capable of creating and producing knowledge leading to social and economic impact. It outlined six factors required to transform university management structures and functions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Professional leadership of an executive and professionalized staff. Diversified income sources. Core academic values combined with new management, business and market practices. Close contacts with business and the community. An entrepreneurial culture of innovation and enterprise. Integrated academic and research units to stimulate knowledge transfer activities and spin-off companies.

It also proposed the introduction of entrepreneurial studies for students (Gelsenkirchen, 2003). North American institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford are frequently used as exemplars for the entrepreneurial university, neglecting the historically distinctive traditions of these organizations in connecting science with industry. Todorovic et al. (2005) emphasized risk-taking in innovation and commercialization of research through changing organizational culture, processes and people, but did not address educational, student or pedagogical issues. Zaharia and Gibert (2005) addressed the challenge of the entrepreneurial university in the knowledge society, demonstrating new expectations of the university’s role and relationships with industry in the interface between the ‘academic’ and ‘economic’ worlds, requiring the dual management of knowledge creation, production and sharing. Contextual issues are seen to be important, for example in the case of Twente (Lazzoretti and Tavoletti, 2005) which offers a more in-depth and recent study in comparison with Clark (1998), concluding that ‘HEIs in peripheral areas starting from unfavourable conditions can become entrepreneurial and successful – but it helps if you have technical and social sciences departments’. Miclea (2004) proposed ‘learning to do’ as a fundamental aspect of both entrepreneurial studies and the entrepreneurial university, leading to ‘intellectual entrepreneurship’ of action-oriented means and goals. These diverse perspectives indicate the range of expectations of universities as well as the complexity of the topic and the absence of a definition of what constitutes an entrepreneurial university. More recent contributions by leading entrepreneurship scholars in the UK illuminate the topic. Kirby (2006) identified significant barriers to entrepreneurship in universities, principally associated with their largeness and layers of control, which tended to discourage entrepreneurial people from pursuing academic careers. He took as a definition of entrepreneurial culture, in universities or elsewhere, the ability to ‘innovate, recognise and create opportunities, work in teams, take risks and respond to challenges’ (Department of Employment, 1989, p. 3). Kirby used entrepreneurship and corporate intrapreneurship theories to propose how a university can create an environment supportive of, and conducive to, entrepreneurship development. He suggested a strategic management approach, offering suggestions on the strategy, its implementation and organization, communication, encouragement, recognition, reward and promotion. Gibb (2002; 2005) argued that the business school is no longer a vehicle fit for leading


277

entrepreneurship in universities, a new approach being needed ‘to take entrepreneurship out of the locker room of economics’, and base it ‘within a wider interdisciplinary context and taking a pluralistic and diffused view of society’ (Gibb, 2002, p. 251). Gibb suggested that the entrepreneurial university is based on its approach to enterprise education, and proposed guidelines for designing an entrepreneurial organization. Overall, the change required the HEI move to become a ‘learning’ rather than ‘learned’ organization, porous and open to learning from all sources (Gibb, 2005). Gibb connected the entrepreneurial university with entrepreneurship education. Although there has been extensive writing on this topic, including Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994), Gorman et al. (1997), Hannon (2004), Pittaway and Cope (2005), less attention has been paid to the development of enterprising teachers and their pedagogy. The movement in recent years has been towards experiential learning, learning ‘for’ rather than ‘about’ entrepreneurship but in which there is often a focus on the tangible and assessable outcome of a business plan rather than the skills of entrepreneurship. Hannon (2005) set out five philosophies of education – liberalist, progressive, behaviourist, humanistic, radical – and their implications for entrepreneurship, proposing that the educator could adopt the role of a ‘guru, guide, controller, helper or co-ordinator’ (p. 112) depending on the underlying philosophy, and that ‘higher education programmes founded in explicit philosophies of entrepreneurship education . . . will achieve greater consistency, clarity and coherence of purpose, process and practice’ (p. 113). Similarly, although it is implicitly evident that the change needed for a university to become entrepreneurial requires human agency and skills, this is little documented. The human capital and capabilities involved in organizational change and transformation appear to be taken for granted. Clark (1998) talked of ‘a strengthened steering core’ and provided examples of entrepreneurial academics and managers within HEIs who have led change; Kirby (2006) was prescriptive in what should be done but less so in who or how this should take place; whilst Gibb (2005) was clear that academic leadership is required, demonstrated by people who themselves are enterprising. It can be supposed that to introduce entrepreneurship into a university requires such capabilities as: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

vision and strategic ambition leadership communication, presentation and influencing skills personal creativity and innovative thinking applying learning from a range of sources in different contexts ability to operate in conditions of change, uncertainty and complexity organizational and academic management skills.

The context for entrepreneurship in universities This section summarizes the significant developments which have shaped the environment for the entrepreneurial university in England. It is increasingly evident that the context within which HEIs operate is dynamic, yet only partially conducive to entrepreneurial approaches. The forces of regulation, especially by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and its Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the assessment processes of teaching quality and research (RAE), the changes to funding which include student tuition fees and bursaries, the focus on governance and

278


risk reduction, may constrain entrepreneurship. Since 2003 the sector has experienced growing financial pressures, with costs of modernization, staff and pensions rising. Some universities have prospered whilst others have become challenged, experiencing falling student numbers. Government policy and independent reports such as Dearing (1997), the higher education (HE) White Paper (DfEs, 2003), and the Lambert Review (2003) exhorted universities to become entrepreneurial, stimulated by significant funding through such methods as Higher Education Reach-out to Business and Community (HEROBAC), Science Enterprise Challenge and Higher Education Innovation Funding. These were intended to stimulate academic entrepreneurship and the earning of ‘third stream’ funding through cultural and systemic change within the sector. However this change has been slow and problematic. Universities are heterogeneous and hybrid organizations which embody in varying degrees charitable, public sector, business-like and unique academic values, habits and identities, being exposed to competing pressures and expectations of both control and market liberalism. They are rooted in historic and often local cultures of their institutional biographies which influence and constrain their ability to change. This does not preclude entrepreneurship, but neither is it straightforward. It can be argued that the notion of ‘the entrepreneurial university’ is no longer particularly helpful. Clark (1998) suggested that the terms ‘enterprising’, ‘innovative’ and ‘learning’ were also applicable and there is no single, definitive conceptualization of ‘the entrepreneurial university’. It is beyond doubt that the idea of the entrepreneurial university has become enormously useful to policy-makers who recognize it as a means of encouraging self-reform in ways which make HEIs more responsive to markets, opportunities and communities, whilst increasing their ability to earn additional revenues and reduce their reliance on state funding. Most, if not all, HEIs in the UK perceive themselves as being more enterprising because they have engaged in some of the wide range of ‘third stream’ activities, in many cases initiated by government funding. This has resulted in a situation where most HEIs have ‘a degree of enterprise’ in their activities but some are more successful and nearer the goal of being an ‘entrepreneurial university’. However, if this is measured through, for example, success in HEIF metrics and funding, then it is increasingly the large, science and research-based institutions which perform most highly, because they have become adept in the important but specialised areas of sponsored research and knowledge transfer. The thrust of public policy has been, on the one hand, to stimulate enterprise within UK universities, whilst on the other measuring, regulating and controlling the way in which it works. Managers and academics pursue organizational change towards this goal, because it is worthwhile or necessary for their institutions, departments, or their own careers. The competitive market in which HEIs operate means that, for most, an entrepreneurial approach is the only way in which they can survive and develop, through building up commercial activities, attracting and educating students in innovative ways, stimulating new businesses and engaging proactively in business, community and economic regeneration. Yet we know little of the human dimension and what is being learned through this change towards an entrepreneurial culture. This will be explored through the case of the University of Derby between 2001 and 2006, in which the development of an enterprising culture within a university is examined by tracing the process of organizational change.


279

The University of Derby: an enterprising organization? Derby became a university in 1992 when the former Derby College of Higher Education (CHE) gained university status as the first CHE to move directly to become a university. It experienced several years of rapid expansion as new buildings, student residences, courses and international partnerships were developed, and merged with High Peak College in Buxton to become a combined Further and Higher Education institution. This period of development could rightly be described as entrepreneurial, since the identity, products, infrastructure and organizational form of the institution changed rapidly, and innovative solutions to opportunities and problems were pursued. However, by 2001 this period of growth had plateaued and setbacks were experienced. Students became more difficult to attract, the marginal financial position of the institution deteriorated, and there were signs of tension between its goals, its capability to achieve these, and its resources. The period between 2001 and 2006 was one of difficult change for the university, which made a major structural reorganization to achieve economies of scale by moving from nine small academic schools to form four large faculties incorporating multiple academic departments. It pressed ahead with a bold but expensive project to create a new campus at Buxton in the nineteenth-century domed Devonshire Hospital building. Financial stringency led to severe controls on spending, impacting on many areas including teaching accommodation and staff workloads. Many staff left, including the early retirements of the then Vice Chancellor and his Pro and Deputy Vice Chancellors. Students and staff became wary of an institution which had developed an uncertain reputation for academic standards and customer service. Yet a more optimistic narrative can also be constructed. In 1999 the opportunity for engaging with regional development through business and community engagement was recognized and the first of a series of successful bids for HEIF funding was made, in 2000 establishing the Regional Enterprise Development (RED) office and a network of staff to develop and manage externally funded activity across the institution. Whilst this organization experienced a chequered history, with a complete change in the membership occurring during the period, it gradually developed a commercial and focused approach to its work. Partnerships with the other HEIs in the region were developed through the East Midlands Universities Association (EMUA), Science Enterprise Network (EMSEN) and Incubation Network (EMIN). This was a significant step, led by the then Deputy Vice Chancellor, since relationships between the diverse set of HEIs within the region had previously been marked by degrees of distrust, and these networks enabled Derby to develop and to share its expertise through working with other HEIs, and to fund development of these areas. Through its RED and related activity, Derby started to develop a reputation for its work in regional development of business and community activities as well as encouraging a culture of enterprise and innovation within the organization. There were many internal tensions and conflicts in managing this externally funded activity alongside the ‘traditional’ business of the university. Staff who had been appointed from external business organizations or other universities found that, although they were nominally responsible for significant projects and activities, the financial and personnel policies of the university made such issues as contracting, recruitment of project staff, and initiation of expenditure difficult and time-consuming. The

280


centre sought to ‘topslice’ all external income, often at high contribution rates. Some teaching staff were rooted in a traditional ‘550 teaching hours’ mindset and were unable or unwilling to become involved in external short courses or activity with business clients. Services such as the provision of good quality teaching rooms, catering, technical support and administration often did not meet the expectations of external clients. These conflicts between the attempt to develop an ethos of the ‘professional service firm’ within the environment of an overstretched, sometimes inefficient and bureaucratic university were not limited to Derby and embodied the bureaucratic-corporate entrepreneurial dilemma conceptualized by Gibb (2002). The formation and development of the entrepreneurial learning team In 2001, the University of Derby had no academic staff with responsibility for enterprise education. Over the next five years activity in enterprise learning and its impact on the institution grew significantly. This included the development of an enterprise curriculum at undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral levels; innovation in teaching, learning and assessment methods; funded enterprise projects for students, graduates and the local community; practice-based research in entrepreneurial learning; and participation in internal and external networks of educators, practitioners and influencers. It concluded with the ‘Energising Enterprise Education’ (3Es) staff development event in 2006 which represented a landmark achievement for the university. This activity resulted from the work of an entrepreneurial learning team, which provides a useful contribution to understanding entrepreneurial development within universities. The team taught and developed entrepreneurship education, but found that they could only operate successfully by acting as entrepreneurs within the university. The formative and reflective learning experiences of the team as practitioners were a process of entrepreneurial action learning through sense-making, featuring ‘critical incidents’, and ‘practical theories’ developed from praxis (Cope, 2005; Rae; 2004; 2005; Weick, 1995). The development of the team can be related to the literature on entrepreneurial teams which show that significant change is often attributed to team rather than individual effectiveness (Birley and Stockley, 2000; Vyakarnam et al., 1999). Entrepreneurship educators in HEIs often originate from diverse backgrounds rather than being ‘traditional’ academics. This team were freshly appointed into new roles which represented for each individual a career challenge going beyond their previous experience, and from which their learning progressed. Higher education traditionally encourages and rewards the individual rather than a team effort, but it can be suggested that entrepreneurship centres in universities are at their most effective when they feature strong teamworking, as exemplified by the Small Business Centre at the University of Durham, and by more recent cases at the University of Nottingham Institute for Entrepreneurship & Innovation (UNIEI), Leeds Metropolitan and Glamorgan Universities. The team consisted of three people: 1.

David Rae (DR) was appointed as Director of Enterprise Development at the Derbyshire Business School in the University of Derby in 2001 and became its representative in RED. His experience included running student entertainments, working in publishing, in a public sector agency responsible for enterprise and training, and running his own training business whilst completing a Master of Education (M.Ed.)


2.

3.

281

He joined Nottingham Business School as a senior lecturer where he developed externally funded programmes for new entrepreneurs and owner-managed businesses, and was instrumental in creating The Hive as a centre for graduate innovators and entrepreneurs. Derby was his first managerial role in higher education, prior to which he had started four new ventures, two independent businesses and two within large organizations. Simon Gee (SG) had a career background in architecture, property development and small business management. After a period in self-employment in architectural practice and project management, he completed a Master of Business Administration (MBA) and built up a successful small business with a property portfolio whilst lecturing part-time on international programmes at Derby. He was appointed as a senior lecturer in enterprise in 2001 as his first full time academic appointment, and maintained his business interests. Rob Moon (RM) had started his career in aero-engine design and had experience in computer-aided design, innovation and project management, specializing in enterprising approaches to problem-solving across organizational boundaries, before leaving to change his career by undertaking an MBA and starting to teach parttime. He was appointed a lecturer in entrepreneurship in 2003 as his first full-time academic appointment.

Each of the team had made a deliberate career change in their early–mid career to enter higher education, having gained postgraduate degrees. They each had experience of small or corporate business and of working in independent roles. As a team they developed a shared ethos of changing the university’s approach to enterprise learning, and worked towards this by managing multiple agendas and tasks, role flexibility, and playing to the strengths and weaknesses of each team member. East Midlands Science Enterprise Network (EMSEN) In 2001 this was the subject of a successful Science Enterprise Centre stage 2 bid through a collaborative project headed by UNIEI, which included all the region’s HEIs in a project to expand enterprise education into science, technology and across the curriculum. Initial funding was secured from 2001–03 with continuation from 2004–06. Participation in EMSEN was an important experience for the team which exposed them to successful practices and expertise in enterprise education and brought together the people leading this aspect of cultural change across the region’s universities, creating an alliance of change-makers who were engaged in advancing the enterprise agenda in each institution. Warren (2003) has written about the educational challenges of the EMSEN experience and Gibbs (2006) has charted its wider policy significance. Derby participated in EMSEN with the goals of developing entrepreneurship education and related activity; stimulating entrepreneurial culture and activity; contributing to and gaining from regional partnership; engaging with new and growing businesses including graduate start-ups; and to support the formation of a Centre for Entrepreneurial Management (CEM), whose aim was to act as a focal point in growing enterprise-related activities in education, business start-up and growth, knowledge transfer, regional development and commercial activities. The contractual targets for the EMSEN-funded activity appear in retrospect to be

282


Table 17.1

Derby entrepreneurship outputs for EMSEN, 2001–06

Output Enterprise learners Innovation projects New ventures formed Business and community projects New enterprise courses/ modules Enterprise tutors and mentors

2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

2004–05

2005–06

170 2 1 0

248 6 4 20

391 9 7 49

493 16 30 20

576 17 32 22

2

2

2

3

6

4

8

12

23

25

quite modest. However, they both imposed a contractual discipline and stimulated creative thinking and purposeful activity to ensure they were met each year with a steadily growing scale of activities. Table 17.1 shows a five-year progression of the outputs generated by Derby for EMSEN from 2001 to 2006. This contribution can be compared with the total outcomes achieved by the EMSEN partnership over the five-year period shown below: ● ● ● ● ● ●

8,0001 undergraduate and postgraduate students in enterprise and innovation programmes 2501 ‘real-life’ business/community-based projects and 3501 student placements 2501 academic/administrative staff in Knowledge Transfer programmes 3501 innovative business ideas assessed and the formation or incubation of over 100 new ventures 2,0001 regionally based businesses involved in curriculum design, development and delivery student enterprise competitions; social enterprise developments; links to business support agencies; and new academic modules/courses (Gibbs, 2006).

The team concluded that, from 2001 to 2006, the growth of enterprise at Derby went through broad phases of initiation, organization, development, expansion, refocusing and wider engagement. Box 17.1 charts these phases, showing the significant achievements and events for the team which occurred each year. Team enterprise connecting diverse areas of interaction It is important to note that this level of achievement could not have been achieved by individuals working separately, nor by a team working in a conventional way through university procedures. The most significant transferable learning point is that an entrepreneurial learning team connects enterprise learning with a range of other areas of interaction across the institution. The team only achieved what it did by working as a team, by constantly promoting learning, and by working in entrepreneurial ways. In turn, this teamwork was inclusive rather than exclusive, and extended to engage with others, both within and outside the university, in joint projects which connected interrelated


BOX 17.1

PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT AND SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES IN THE GROWTH OF ENTERPRISE

2001 Initiation DR & SG appointed Business School starts to participate in university RED activity EMSEN bid successful, initiating five years of continuous development MBA revalidated with Entrepreneurial Management module Centre for Entrepreneurial Management proposed 2002 Organization Centre for Entrepreneurial Management launched in reorganized Business School leading enterprise, external management development and knowledge transfer activities Enterprise curriculum with 3 modules developed for undergraduate Combined Subject Programme (CSP) Entrepreneurial Management module offered in MBA Enterprise offered in psychology and earth sciences subjects Business Development Programme for owner-managed & incubation businesses 2003 Development Formal agreement to work with university business incubation New Venture Programme developed for graduate entrepreneurs CSP revalidated to provide minor joint degree in enterprise RM appointed Enterprise teaching in environmental sciences and product design subjects DBA launched as practice-based research Doctoral programme EMSEN Leicester conference with presentations by Derby team DR wins 1st of 5 research excellence awards at ICSB conference 2004 Expansion RM & DR attend MIT Entrepreneurship Development Program Pilot project for ‘Derbyshire Entrepreneurship’ with subregional development agency Achieving Business Focus programme developed, runs successfully in 2004–07 Enterprise teaching offered in computing & photography subjects CSP Enterprise Management offered as a joint degree HEIF 2 funding won for EMSEN and institutional 3rd stream activity 2004–06

283

284


2005 Refocusing Business School reorganized with CEM focus on enterprise, innovation and funded projects Delivery of HEIF 2 and subregional enterprise projects Planning of Postgraduate Certificate in Enterprise Management Planning of ‘Energising Enterprise Education’ event Presentation to Corporate Management Team on university enterprise strategy Enterprise offered in tourism, sports and hospitality management subjects 2006 Wider engagement ‘Energising Enterprise Education’ event staged Postgraduate Certificate in Enterprise Management validated and launched Completion of HEIF 2 and subregional enterprise projects Successful award of major regional and subregional enterprise projects, 2006–08 Participation in successful collaborative HEIF 3 bid for student business startup bursaries DR appointed Professor at Lincoln University

enterprise agendas. This type of entrepreneurial teamwork became a feature of the EMSEN network, led by UNIEI, and was also evident within the RED strategy group. Figure 17.1 illustrates how the entrepreneurial team interacts between five key areas in the context of enterprise in higher education. These are: ●

● ● ● ●

University mission and strategic management: by advocating to the vice chancellor and senior managers to influence and ensure university strategy and plans embody enterprise across the university. Curriculum for enterprise: to develop and embed curricula for enterprise across the HEI. Enterprising students: to engage students in enterprising learning activities. External communities: to connect with external communities to foster dynamic partnerships for enterprise. Third stream activity: to generate third stream projects which sustain and grow enterprise.

Senior management commitment to enterprise Within the complex environment of higher education it is inevitable that people specialize in particular subjects and types of work, the enterprise team being no exception to this. One danger is that it becomes hard to find the points of ‘common cause’ or potential opportunity between areas which can result in ‘silo management’ with little interaction, Gibb (2002) being a critic of the business school in this respect. This can even apply to the


285

Advocate to influence senior managers to ensure HEI strategy & plans embody enterprise across the institution

Generate 3rd stream projects to sustain & grow enterprise: HEIF activity Business incubation Knowledge Transfer activity Applied funded research Commercial activity Spinout companies

Connect HEI with external organizations to foster dynamic partnerships for enterprise: New small & growing businesses Social & community enterprises Local, regional, national development agencies Schools & colleges Other universities

Figure 17.1

University mission & strategic management Third stream activities

Curriculum for enterprise

The entrepreneurial learning team

External communities

Enterprising students

Develop & embed curricula for enterprise: Teaching learning & assessment Employability Personal development planning & skills Pedagogical & staff development Work-based learning Problem & opportunity centred learning

Engage students in enterprise learning activities: Student & graduate enterprise Extracurricular events & societies Business idea & plan competitions Bursaries for entrepreneurship Coaching & continuous support Lifelong learning Widening access to HE

Five key areas of interaction for the entrepreneurial learning team

work of senior managers in HEIs. It might be argued that university senior management have no more important task than to make their institutions more enterprising, but this neglects the complexity and range of activities for which they are responsible, including not only the governance and management of the institution but also the accountability to a range of external organizations. At Derby, the senior management of the university became more supportive and positively inclined towards enterprise during the period 2001–06, and especially so from 2004–05 when there were changes of personnel in Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Director of Business Development. These senior managers, together with Faculty Deans, were prepared to advocate, lead and stimulate change towards enterprise in the institution, and without this any progress would have been much more limited. However, for such senior managers, enterprise is only one of their concerns, whereas for the entrepreneurial learning team (ELT) it was their main focus; hence it was important to be able to influence and inform HEI strategy

286


from a position of expertise, and to interact with senior managers in a range of ways to implement enterprising approaches within the organization. This inclusive teamwork was evidenced in the organization of the ‘Energising Enterprise Education’ or 3Es event which was one of the most ambitious projects undertaken by the team. This is included as a short case study of a ‘critical incident’ which illustrates the team’s innovative approach. It became evident from evaluating progress during 2005 that there were significant cultural barriers to extending enterprise within the university, and that change over the previous four years was slow and involved too few managers and academic staff. The team decided that the best way forward was to engage significantly more staff from across the institution in understanding and applying enterprising approaches. To achieve this they needed to overcome cultural barriers to create a wider realization of ‘what enterprising learning means for me’ for staff across the institution. 3Es: cultural change through staff development This major staff development event was organized to stimulate and share perspectives on enterprising skills and learning across all subject areas in the university curriculum and the role of enterprise in its work with partner organizations. The goals were to: ● ● ●

share and develop understanding of enterprise in learning and education; in employability and careers; and in engaging with business and the community develop skills, innovation and confidence in teaching and stimulating enterprising learning across the curriculum relate enterprise to the university’s broader role in the economy and community, especially in contributing to economic growth and widening access to learning.

It was expected that participants would experience the following learning outcomes: ● ● ● ●

understanding how enterprising teaching and learning relate to their work learning from and applying examples of excellent practice discovering enterprise learning resources and methods networking, learning, and gaining inspiration from enterprising and innovative practitioners.

A working group planned and organized the event, including two members of the team, an administrator, and representatives from the Career Development Centre, Quality Enhancement and Staff Development, Learning Teaching and Assessment (LTA) Network, RED office and Business Incubation Manager. This group played a crucial role in finalizing the programme, organizing speakers and facilitators, advising and supporting the marketing and detailed programme organization, and assisting with the event on the day. Each member of the group was able to achieve part of their agenda through the event, for example, through the careers service connecting enterprise with student employability. The event was open to all staff whose roles touched on enterprise, employability, and external business, community and educational links. It was attended by 77 university staff and 45 from external organizations, including other universities, colleges, schools,


287

businesses and public sector agencies, to stimulate networking and collaboration between university staff and external agencies. The outcomes and conclusions from the 3Es event were that: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The event successfully achieved its aims and attracted a combination of people who responded very positively to the enterprising experience. It could not have been staged successfully without the developments in partnerships, curricula and teamwork over the previous four years. Externally the event was perceived by partners and peers to be innovative, and put the university ‘on the map’ by leading practice in enterprise development, and showcasing its capabilities effectively. The external interaction with partner organizations added to the credibility and success of the event. Internally, the event depended entirely on the contributions and support not only of the entrepreneurial learning team, but on the inputs from Business Development, Career Development, Quality Enhancement and Staff Development, and Learning Teaching and Assessment members, demonstrating that enterprise works best ‘across’ the institution through effective internal teamwork. The event raised awareness of the strong connections between enterprising learning, the skills agenda, innovation in learning, teaching and assessment, employability, widening participation and business and community development, in the wider context of the university’s mission. The team was asked, ‘when will you do this again?’ which highlighted the importance of continuing to promote an enterprising culture in the university, of an effective internal network to champion the enterprise agenda, of ensuring that learners are involved to the maximum, together with finding creative ways of engaging with businesses.

What was achieved at Derby? Enterprise progressed significantly and became established in the curriculum at Derby, but still for a limited number of students in a formal sense (576 in 2005–06). More students were learning in enterprising ways as a result of staff and LTA development, but much work remained to extend enterprise across the curriculum for all students: ‘The range of enterprise education is now well developed and structured. ‘The provision is there but exists within concentrated areas as opposed to across all faculties’ (quotation from an anonymous respondent to the survey described below). Entrepreneurial learning has been connected with incubation support for emergent graduate enterprises, and new ventures in the area were able to link with the university through regional enterprise projects. But enterprise and incubation were still managed separately and progress towards dedicated ‘working and learning space’ for emergent entrepreneurs on campus was slow. A short email questionnaire was used in 2006 to elicit feedback from key informants on their perceptions of becoming ‘an entrepreneurial university’. These included the Vice and Deputy Vice Chancellors, Director of Business Development, Faculty Deans and Assistant Deans, managers of business incubation and partnership development, and the chairman of EMSEN. Extracts from their responses to the three questions posed are included below.

288 1.

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education Do you consider that the University of Derby has progressed towards becoming an ‘entrepreneurial university’ in encouraging enterprising activities among students, staff, businesses and the community? At Derby you created the rhetorical vision for enterprise and drew your key actors into the story – senior management, academic entrepreneurs, teaching team and, of course, students. Building the core delivery team has been the key to success in the Derby story, in aligning a set of core values with a rich and diverse curriculum offering. Significance will be judged in the medium to long term. I am confident that impact will be even more significant as the ethos builds. Overall UoD (University of Derby) has made considerable progress over the last 5 years on enterprise by raising its profile in the institution, pushing the issue up the agenda, developing a curriculum and becoming recognised as having expertise in this area. The challenge going forward is to extend this, encourage more graduates to set up businesses, deliver external income generation, and improve systems and processes so that they are able to cope with a fast moving and dynamic environment. There has been significant progress in this area, most notably within the last 12 months. There has been a cultural shift to this type activity following the change in VC (Vice Chancellor) and stronger regional and sub-regional employer/community engagement. This is moving in the right direction, but we have not yet established a reputation as an ‘entrepreneurial university.’

2.

How significant do you consider the progress made by the university has been in becoming an ‘entrepreneurial university’? In art and design there is a natural desire to be creative, innovative and enterprising, some of the third stream activity has allowed this to be recognised, celebrated and brought to the fore as opposed to being buried in the curriculum. Momentum is growing in stimulating and supporting business start-ups with more integrated services, communication, joint venturing, thinking and behaviour like an ‘entrepreneurial University’. There is a cultural shift in developing enterprising skills and behaviours in managers and staff aided by events such as the 3e’s, new VC, BDU (Business Development Unit), commercial policies and funds. A dynamic team has driven the enterprise culture. Besides delivering enterprise development activities to ‘customers’, there has been effective staff development.

3.

What do you consider are the most significant constraints or limitations which the university encounters in becoming a more entrepreneurial organization? Respondents saw the issues of conflicting goals and priorities, together with management commitment and focus, as being the main constraints to becoming a more entrepreneurial university. Limited internal staffing and financial resources, and existing culture and systems, were seen as less significant constraints:


289

There is a great deal of history that takes time to unravel and is embedded in the cultural web of an institution. Major changes take place when personnel are replaced which gradually removes the histories and the myths. All HEIs face the issue of existing culture & systems. Changes at the top, in the case of Derby, have helped move the enterprise agenda forward. Currently this University is heavily dependent on HEFCE funding and constraints on entrepreneurialism as an institution are evident.

Respondents saw that significant progress had been made over the five years and that this had accelerated within the past 12 months especially since the changes in senior management at the university. The work of the team was acknowledged as having played an important role, within the complex interdependence of different factors on the change process. It is clear that respondents did not yet see Derby as being an entrepreneurial university, but was progressing towards becoming one. This reinforces the notion of the entrepreneurial university as a process of ‘becoming’, rather than a fixed state of ‘being’. What did the team learn? The team reflected continually on the approaches and methods they used in developing, introducing and using entrepreneurial learning within the university. There were ideas and innovations which failed or which worked less well than those which succeeded. This is the team’s ‘practical theory’ of entrepreneurial teamworking, developed through reflection on practice and found to be effective (Rae, 2004): 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

You have to act confidently as an entrepreneur to make what you intend a reality. The vision and goals need to be understood and committed to, believing that change will happen, then everyone works interdependently and with tenacity towards them. Changing the culture requires changing language and expectations as well as challenging cultural barriers to change. The term ‘entrepreneur’ encountered resistance but ‘enterprise’ was more acceptable. The team focus is outside the Business School (and frequently the university) because most of the opportunities and resources are external. Recognition and engagement with networks such as EMSEN, NCGE and regional, national and international alliances should be used to educate the university, demonstrating benefits through internal and external marketing to reinforce the team’s reputation and credibility through research, press and media channels. The team has to be enterprising through creating new connections between enterprise, educational and commercial policy agendas including careers and employability, innovation in teaching learning and assessment methods, business incubation, external income generation and community development, staff development and research; by doing this, a quantum increase in the impact on entrepreneurial learning and results were achieved. The team needs not only an innovator but also a systematic process of applying, reviewing, critiquing and enhancing innovation through practice. We innovated to

290

6.

7.

Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education create an entrepreneurial learning approach, ‘Opportunity Centred Entrepreneurship’ which is used in a portfolio of different programmes and modules (Rae, 2003; 2007). This is flexible and adaptive to different groups and situations, enabling opportunistic working without reinventing the core product. The team needs to take collective responsibility for action, using a combination of skills, including leadership, networking and representation, creativity and innovation, organization and project management, implementation, problem-solving and fixing, using technology, finding and managing resources, marketing and research. As no one possessed all of these, the team needed to trust one another to use their optimal skills towards the goals. Enterprising learning is social, participative, constructive, practice based, experiential and about personal growth; it is not didactic teaching or lecturing and does not follow a prescribed pathway. It should be stimulating, interesting, relevant to the context and even enjoyable to the learner. Tutors are guides, helpers, advisers, stimulators and role models in practical engagement with students. By being confident, motivated and enthusiastic then our students, colleagues and external partners share this outlook: believe in what you are doing and enjoy it!

What did not work so well? Enterprise is still a new concept in some subject areas, arising from cultural and territorial issues which led to a lack of trust. In 2001–02 subject areas such as psychology rejected the notion of enterprise because they saw their future as being in a ‘stable’ National Health Service (NHS) for which it was irrelevant. Five years later, the cultural changes in that organization were affecting the student experience but it takes time to change deepseated academic values: it was observed that ‘Entrepreneurship and innovation are still relatively novel for many academics’. Developing non-business teachers as enterprise tutors also took time, and there is more to do on pedagogical staff development to develop the confidence, enthusiasm and skills to introduce and develop enterprising learning in the curriculum. Continual staff development and encouragement is essential in building an enterprising culture, as Derby has done through an annual series of ‘staff excellence awards’. Derby, in common with other financially marginal universities, tended to value the financial income from third stream activities disproportionally more than non-financial benefits, so attracting this funding as a lever for change and building sustainability beyond funded activity was important. Changing the ‘bean counter’ mindset of university administrative management which stifles longer-term development is arguably more so: ‘A culture of top slicing all income reduces the ability and financial availability to be entrepreneurial.’ Engaging students outside the curriculum is hard work: business idea and plan competitions, special and evening ‘enterprise club’ events initially did not attract more than a small ‘hard core’ and students tended to behave quite instrumentally in focusing on assessed work and what would bring short-term benefits, so it is essential to ensure that activities are perceived as relevant, attractive and owned by students. Conclusions The team learned much from their experiences at Derby during the 2001–06 period, and propose that there are lessons of interest to fellow practitioners which are developed


291

in this section. These relate to the entrepreneurial team, to the cultural context of the university, and to the role of entrepreneurial networks spanning universities and other organizations. As the core team of three academics progressed at Derby, individually and collectively, from being newly appointed and inexperienced in their roles, they became an entrepreneurial team which made a significant impact on the university. The development and effectiveness of an entrepreneurial learning team and the values, skills and methods it developed are proposed as key factors in the change process. There are many cases of individuals being appointed as enterprise education facilitators or leaders in universities, often supported by external funding, who then encounter difficulties and frustrations in attempting to bring about curricular, cultural and institutional changes (for example, Warren, 2003). To be effective, such ‘change agents’ need to develop an internal network of co-actors, potentially spanning different subject areas, careers, business or commercial development and external funding personnel, and with the support of senior management. Expecting the individual to bring about institutional change is a more risky model, because change arises through collective action, and the entrepreneurial team can be a more effective approach: as with entrepreneurship itself, enterprise education should be thought of as ‘plural rather than singular’ (Vyakarnam et al., 1999). A group brings a wider range of skills, contacts and prior experience than individuals acting alone, together with the ability to engage with a broader network of subjects, staff and students. Therefore, in appointing and developing enterprise educators, universities should consider their ability to draw together and to lead or participate in teams and network groups. It should also be recognized that any HEI is a complex, large organization in a process of constant sectoral and institutional change. The ability of any one person or a group to influence this change is limited, temporally as well as in its degree and effects. The direction of change is not fixed, and changes in leadership or circumstances can reverse the movement towards an entrepreneurial university, as has occurred in other institutions. A limitation of the development of ‘the entrepreneurial university’ is that change continually has to be negotiated, that progress is not permanent or fixed, and can be impaired or negated by other internal or external changes such as changes in senior personnel, loss of funding, or other factors. There is no easy answer to this except to visualize ‘the entrepreneurial university’ as a journey rather than a destination; in other words, continuous change and development is necessary to move towards it. The development of entrepreneurship within a university represents a cultural change, in which conflicts with the ‘base culture’ are perhaps inevitable. Derby originated in an HE college run by a local authority, subject to heavy internal and external regulation, and this culture raised many barriers and gave rise to conflicts between enterprise and regulation; it is not the only post-1992 university to experience this tension, which changes only gradually over time as people move on and systemic and environmental change occurs. Conflict can yield both change and learning, and this was found to be the case at Derby when fixed and traditional positions were often challenged by innovation, and a third position was found to be the best way forward. It has been proposed that there is no one model of ‘the entrepreneurial university’ but rather a range of possible types and models based on various contingent factors (Pittaway and Hannon, 2007). In this way the entrepreneurial university is likely to

292


reflect not only its own history and culture, but also that of the student population, the local and regional actors and organizations with which it must interact. These factors will include aspects which are not necessarily conducive to academic entrepreneurship. For example, academic staff may well be resistant to what they see as the ‘marketization’ of higher education and be reluctant to accept a capitalist free-market ideology within disciplines where critical and independent thinking are valued. Academic systems of regulation, management and quality assurance may make curricular innovation slow or difficult and may not welcome enterprise being introduced into the curriculum, especially if associated with different pedagogical approaches. Such barriers need to be understood, for whilst they may represent simply inertia, they may also reveal valuable and hard-tochange aspects of the cultural identity of the institution. We see from the literature on the subject that each institution needs to create and shape its own narrative of entrepreneurial change, and that whilst there is great potential for people in one university to learn from another, replication of ‘a model’ is unlikely to work. Possibly national culture is a significant factor affecting institutions; we see examples of Polish HEIs and those in other, recently joined, EU states and their students showing greater interest in entrepreneurship than in Germany, for example. Different cultures have different institutional biographies, traditions and expectations of higher education. The notion of entrepreneurial teamwork can also operate above the level of the individual institution, for example in partnerships such as EMSEN, or between universities and other organizations. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such teams operate widely, but little is known about them. Some may be ‘marriages of convenience’, brought together simply to obtain funding, whilst others develop a more substantive and durable rationale. Our experience suggests that a number of entrepreneurial teams operate in a university such as Derby and its partner organizations, through which enterprise, business development and innovation are enacted in an organic way. Such teams come together and act upon a problem, by turning it into an opportunity and achieving results, then either adapt and evolve or dissolve. This type of flexible or emergent structure is necessary, yet is not well understood within the rigid structures of academic departments. Another example was seen in the Student Placement for Entrepreneurship through Education Development (SPEED) programme run by a group of UK universities from 2006 to 2008 in which a network-based project was highly effective not only in generating opportunities for students to create their own businesses as work experience projects, but also in focusing institutional change from participating HEIs (Birch and Clements, 2006). The potential for learning networks of enterprise educators to generate and share innovative practices is significant, also being evidenced through developments such as the Enterprise Educators UK (EEUK) conference and organization, and in models such as SPEED which are relatively simple yet powerful. But there is a tendency for projects such as this to be funded by the national government or the EU for a limited time, before lapsing because of the lack of a sustainable resource base and ‘mainstream’ funding. There is an increasing need for self-sustaining business models to be created to fund the ongoing provision of enterprise education if it is to be institutionalized and maintained as a core aspect of the curriculum. A number of initiatives have been launched in connection with entrepreneurship within Universities in the United Kingdom which originate from the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) and which place this research into a more general context. A report on enterprise and entrepreneurship in higher education


293

(NCGE, 2007, p. 2) identified that student engagement in enterprise stood at 11 per cent across the sector, 36 per cent of this being within the curriculum and 64 per cent extra-curricular, with 50 per cent of universities showing ‘entrepreneurial characteristics’ including a student incubator, start-up funds, staff training, a Pro-Vice Chancellor for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship, an explicit policy for these aspects, and curricula development funds. These are taken as basic ‘building blocks’ for entrepreneurial activity. A subsequent report (NCGE, 2008, p. 6) commented that: ‘Major structural, cultural and attitudinal barriers are making it hard to embed entrepreneurship education in HEIs.’ This report offered a framework to create ‘enabling environments stakeholders and entrepreneurial practices’ for delivering entrepreneurship education within HEIs based on three principles: 1. 2. 3.

The need for an enabling institutional environment. The engagement of key stakeholders within and outside the institution. The development of entrepreneurial pedagogic approaches in teaching, learning and support practices.

Also in 2008, the NCGE launched three new initiatives: ● ● ●

Enterprise Champions to lead and support entrepreneurship within universities University Enterprise Networks to connect industries, institutions and students Entrepreneurial University of the Year awards.

Seven factors were identified as judging criteria for these latter awards: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

strong leadership that develops entrepreneurial capacities for all students and staff strong ties with its external stakeholders that deliver added value the delivery of entrepreneurial outcomes that make an impact to people and organizations innovative learning techniques that inspire entrepreneurial action open boundaries that encourage effective flows of knowledge between organizations multidisciplinary approaches to education that mimic real-world experience and focus on solving complex world challenges the drive to promote the application of entrepreneurial thinking and leadership.

How are these developments relevant to our chapter? The first point is that they represent a very clear ‘dirigiste’ prescriptive policy direction from the NCGE as an agency acting on behalf of UK government departments. Its prescriptions may be helpful, in some situations and for some institutions, but they remain quite prescriptive. Secondly, by being based on criteria and frameworks, they suggest that by following these design principles, cultural change will follow and entrepreneurial activity will increase, yet there is no guarantee that this will be so. As with any complex prescription for organizational development, the value is probably more in encouraging people to use them as a way of thinking and talking through the issues in their own organization rather than attempting

294


to use them as a recipe for change. Finally, they do not alter our fundamental point, that organizational change is more likely to be accomplished by a team than by an individual. Our argument is that change is humanistic at least as much as organizational, and such prescriptions do not really account for the ways in which practitioners such as ourselves may bring about such changes. Therefore, our contribution to the literature on this topic is to propose that the entrepreneurial university is enacted through teams of people who work interdependently as entrepreneurs within and beyond their organizations, who act both strategically and operationally, and who connect different people and agendas together into a coherent stream of enterprising activities which create new value, both financial and in the forms of learning, innovation and culture, for the university and for students, staff and external partners. Abbreviations BDU CEM CHE CSP DBA DR EEUK ELT EMIN EMSEN EMUA 3Es EU HE HEFCE HEI HEIF HEROBAC LTA MBA M.Ed. MIT NCGE NHS PhD QAA RAE RED

Business Development Unit at the University of Derby Centre for Entrepreneurial Management at the University of Derby college of higher education Combined Subject Programme at the University of Derby Doctor of Business Administration David Rae member of the ELT Enterprise Educators UK entrepreneurial learning team East Midlands Incubation Network East Midlands Science Enterprise Network East Midlands Universities Association Energising Enterprise Education staff development event European Union higher education Higher Education Funding Council for England higher education institution Higher Education Innovation Fund; provided 3 rounds of funding, 2000–08 Higher Education Reach-out to Business and Community funding preceded HEIF Learning Teaching and Assessment development activity within universities Master of Business Administration Master of Education postgraduate award Massachusetts Institute of Technology National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship National Health Service Doctor in Philosophy Quality Assurance Agency, part of HEFCE Research Assessment Exercise administered by HEFCE Regional Enterprise Development business development network within the University of Derby

The role of an entrepreneurial learning team RM SEC SG SPEED UNIEI UoD VC

295

Rob Moon member of the ELT Science Enterprise Challenge funding initiative to develop enterprise in the science curriculum Simon Gee member of the ELT Student Placement for Entrepreneurship through Education Development University of Nottingham Institute for Entrepreneurship & Innovation University of Derby Vice Chancellor

References Birch, C. and B. Clements (2006), ‘Creating graduate entrepreneurship through self-employed work placements – Project SPEED’, paper presented at the 29th Institute for Small Business Affairs Entrepreneurship and SME Development Conference, November, Cardiff. Birley, S. and S. Stockley (2000), ‘Entrepreneurial teams and venture growth’, in D. Sexton and H. Landström (eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, B.R. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transition, Oxford: IAU Press/Elsevier. Cope, J. (2005), ‘Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29 (4), 373. Dearing, R. (1997), Higher Education in the Learning Society, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Norwich: HMSO. Deem, R. (2001), ‘Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: is the local dimension still important?’, Comparative Education, 37 (1), 7–20. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003), The Future of Higher Education, Norwich: HMSO. Department of Employment (1989), Enterprise in Higher Education: Key Features of the Enterprise in Higher Education Proposals, Sheffield: The Training Agency. Garavan, T.N. and B. O’Cinneide (1994), ‘Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation – Part 1’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 18 (8), 3–12; Part 2, 18 (11), 13–21. Gelsenkirchen (2003), ‘The Gelsenkirchen declaration on institutional entrepreneurial management and entrepreneurial studies in higher education in Europe’, Higher Education in Europe, 29 (2), 241–2. Gibb, A. (2002), ‘In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4 (3), 213–31. Gibb, A. (2005), ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university: entrepreneurship education as a lever for change’, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Policy Paper No. 003, Birmingham. Gibbs, R. (2006), ‘East Midlands Science Enterprise Network report, July 2006’, University of Nottingham Institute for Enterprise & Innovation, Nottingham. Gorman, G., D. Hanlon and W. King (1997), ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review’, International Small Business Journal, 15 (3), 56–77. Hannon, P. (2004), Making the Journey from Student to Entrepreneur: A Review of the Existing Research into Graduate Entrepreneurship, Birmingham: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. Hannon, P. (2005), ‘Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for higher education in the UK’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 6 (2), 105–14. Kirby, D. (2006), ‘Creating entrepreneurial universities: a consideration’, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship Working Paper 005/2006, Birmingham. Kristensen, B. (1999), ‘The entrepreneurial university as a learning university’, Higher Education in Europe, 24 (1), 35–47. Lambert, R. (2003), Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, Norwich: HMSO. Lazzeroni, M. and A. Piccaluga (2003), ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university’, Local Economy, 18 (1), 38–49. Lazzoretti, L. and E. Tavoletti (2005), ‘Higher education excellence and local economic development: the case of the entrepreneurial University of Twente’, European Planning Studies, 13 (3), 475–93. Miclea, M. (2004), ‘“Learning to do” as a pillar of education and its links to entrepreneurial studies in higher education: European contexts and approaches’, Higher Education in Europe, 29 (2), 221–31. National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) (2007), Enterprise and Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Birmingham: NCGE.

296


National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) (2008), Developing Entrepreneurial Graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education, Birmingham: NCGE. Pawlowski, K. (2003), ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university’, Higher Education in Europe, 26 (3), 427–36. Pittaway, L. and J. Cope (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education – a systematic review of the evidence’, paper presented at ISBE conference, Blackpool, 1–3 November. Pittaway, L. and P. Hannon (2007), ‘Institutional strategies for developing enterprise education’, paper presented at ISBE conference, Glasgow, 7–9 November. Rae, D. (2003), ‘Opportunity centred learning: an innovation in enterprise education?’, Education and Training, 45 (8/9), 542–9. Rae, D. (2004), ‘Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11 (2), 195–202. Rae, D. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model’, Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development, 12 (3), 323–35. Rae, D. (2007), Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schulte, P. (2004), ‘The entrepreneurial university: a strategy for institutional development’, Higher Education in Europe, 29 (2), 187–91. Slaughter, S. and G. Leslie (1997), Academic Capitalism, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Soares, V. and A. Amaral (1999), ‘The entrepreneurial university: a fine answer to a difficult problem?’, Higher Education in Europe, 24 (1), 11–22. Solé-Parellada, F., J. Coll-Bertran and T. Navarro-Hernández (2001), ‘University Design and Development’, Higher Education in Europe, 26 (3), 341–50. Todorovic, W., R. McNaughton and P. Guild (2005), ‘Making university departments more entrepreneurial: the perspective from within’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation, 6 (2), 115–22. Vyakarnam, S., R. Jacobs and J. Handelberg (1999), ‘Exploring the formation of entrepreneurial teams: the key to rapid growth business?’, Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development, 6 (2), 153–65. Warren, L. (2003), ‘What are the educational challenges of the Science Enterprise Challenge?’, paper presented at 48th ICSB Conference, Belfast, June. Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Zaharia, S. and E. Gibert (2005), ‘The entrepreneurial university in the knowledge society’, Higher Education in Europe, 30 (1), 31–40.

18 Corporate entrepreneurship training: a routine inquiry Janice Byrne

Introduction Competitive advantage is achieved through innovation (Porter, 1990). However as organizations age and become more bureaucratic, they run the risk of losing the entrepreneurial and innovative drive upon which they were founded. To revitalize the innovation process, organizations need to actively select, promote and support ‘change champions’ within the firm (Kanter, 1983). One way to create and nurture these ‘change champions’ is through the provision of transformational training to firm executives. Corporate entrepreneurship (CE) programmes may help combat the rigidity and bureaucracy which often accompanies a growth in company size (Thornberry, 2003). Extensive employee training has been found to contribute to organizational innovation (Shipton et al., 2006) and today’s organizations increasingly use training solutions as part of a system-wide change to gain their competitive edge (Kraiger et al., 2004). Many organizations engage in corporate entrepreneurship training (CET) programmes as a way to induce innovative behaviour and entrepreneurial activity within an established organization (Hornsby et al., 2002; Kanter, 1985; Kuratko et al., 1990; Thornberry, 2003). Training programmes targeted at executives are no longer about mere knowledge transmission but instead seek to evoke long lasting behavioural change (Conger and Xin, 2000). A transformational programme presupposes a change in behaviour of the attending executive so that the latter becomes more effective in personal or organizational change (Kets de Vries and Korotov, 2007). Executive education programmes are increasingly ‘harnessed as opportunities to recast the world views of executives and to align organizations to new directions’ (Conger and Xin, 2000, p. 73). Corporate entrepreneurship training programmes are put in place to encourage participants to discover and exploit innovation opportunities. Their objective is to ‘transform’ the executive mindset and foster new behaviours. But what exactly do such initiatives achieve in practice? What are the key issues involved in evoking such behavioural change? How can we observe and measure their impact? Organizational routines have long been seen as an observable manifestation of organizational behaviour. A lot of the work in organizations is performed through routines (Cyert and March, 1963; March and Simon, 1958) and they thus constitute an important element of organizational behaviour (Feldman, 2000). The analysis of routines underpins much of the research in the evolutionary, ecological and organizational learning literatures. Routines constitute the repeated patterns of behaviour bound by rules and customs that characterize much of an organization’s ongoing activity (Cyert and March, 1963; Nelson and Winter, 1982). Recent research recognizes that organizational routines play an important role in understanding processes of change in organizations (Becker, 2004; Cohen et al., 1996). Routines can be a source of inertia and resistance (Hannan 297

298


and Freeman, 1984; Levinthal and March, 1993) but also a source of flexibility and endogenous change (Feldman, 2000; Miner, 1991). Recent research also highlights how routine and agent are not easily separated: routines are enacted and reproduced by active ‘agents’ (Bresnen et al., 2005, Feldman, 2000). To date, the literature on organizational routines has not sufficiently explored the potential for routine change. Much remains to be understood about the effects of existing organizational routines upon efforts to introduce and implement change (Bresnen et al., 2005). The process through which organizations and managers alter routines remains under-explained in the organization literature (Edmondson et al., 2001). There is also comparatively little in-depth exploration of exactly how agency contributes to organizational change in general (Becker, 2004). While considerable attention is given to the product development side of innovation, it is a matter of debate whether the same degree of attention is always given to the people side, and the identification and development of people with entrepreneurial potential (Thompson, 2004). This trend is echoed in the corporate entrepreneurship literature which tends to focus on the ‘process’ or take the organization as its predominant unit of analysis. The agency of the individual and their entrepreneurial actions has not been given sufficient weight (Czernich, 2004). In this chapter, I attempt to investigate whether a corporate entrepreneurship training programme can impact an individual’s intention to evoke routine change. In section 1, I present the theoretical grounding of this study. I draw on the corporate entrepreneurship and organizational routines literature to evoke some important considerations for CET evaluation. In section 2, I present my research design. I present the research context, outline some methodological considerations and describe the process of data collection and analysis. In section 3, I outline some preliminary findings and discuss some interpretations and implications of these findings for further research. 1

Theoretical grounding

Innovation and corporate entrepreneurship The outcomes of innovation, which is a core entrepreneurial activity, are difficult to predict (Phan et al., 2009). Innovative outcomes originate as organizational ‘variations’ (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006; Burgelman, 1991). Variations are the raw materials from which selection processes cull those innovations that are most suitable, given the selection criteria (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006). Any departure from routine or tradition is a variation, and variations may be intentional or blind (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006). Organizations can act to instigate intentional variation by way of: (1) formal programmes of experimentation and imitation; (2) direct and indirect incentives offered to employees and (3) encouragement of unfocused variation or ‘playfulness’ (Miner, 1994). Corporate entrepreneurship is a blanket term for corporate venturing, innovation and renewal activities within the firm (Phan et al., 2009). In implementing CE programmes, organizations attempt to induce exploratory variation by institutionalizing experimentation in projects, programmes, divisions, and other officially sanctioned activities (Burgelman, 1983). Corporate entrepreneurship may be thought of as ‘the process whereby an individual or group of individuals, in association with an existing organization, create a new organization, or instigate renewal or innovation within that organization’ (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999, p. 18). The scope of CE is widening

Corporate entrepreneurship training

299

as organizations that have not previously been recognized as entrepreneurial begin to do so in order to survive and succeed in increasingly competitive and financially constrained environments (Phan et al., 2009). CE is not about business-as-usual but rather about ‘unusual business’ (Thornberry, 2003) and involves disrupting the ‘status quo’ through generating numerous variations. The higher the frequency of variations, whatever their source, the greater the opportunities for change in the organization (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006). In some organizations, innovation has become a routinized, almost predictable activity which is incorporated into the bureaucratic structures of large organizations (Czernich, 2004). Structures and practices that work well for the perpetuation of the known tend to be at odds with innovation (Kanter, 2000). In such instances the potential for generating variations which result in significant innovations are greatly reduced. The quest to foster innovation often implies an emphasis on products and processes and the role of people ‘in bringing about these product and process innovations is largely taken for granted’ (Thompson, 2004, p. 1082). Cultivating CE requires attention to organizational culture and structure (Ireland et al., 2006; Kanter, 1983; 2000). Furthermore, firms intent on adopting an entrepreneurial stance need to consider the actors or individuals who undertake the process (Czernich, 2004) and introduce practices to aid their development (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990; Thompson, 2004). Culture Culture is a key determinant of and the first step in fostering entrepreneurial activity in an organization (Cornwall and Perlman, 1990). A firm’s innovative capacity is affected by cultural norms (Kanter, 1983). An increasing number of large organizations in both private and public sectors value alertness, opportunity recognition, creative problem-solving and initiative-taking among their employees (Binks et al., 2006). Entrepreneurially managed firms create a ‘culture of pride’ that expects and rewards high levels of achievement (Kanter, 1985). An organizational culture that supports entrepreneurial behaviour is positively supportive of risk-taking, opportunity search and innovation (Byrne and Fayolle, 2009). Top management values and philosophies also play a key role in perpetuating and transmitting entrepreneurial values (Covin and Slevin, 1991). Human resource management (HRM) is generally seen as a mediator of culture (Bunch, 2007) and thus is an important consideration in the design of CE programmes. Structure and practices Companies can make changes to their internal structure to create a more favourable corporate entrepreneurship environment (Ireland et al., 2006). For CE to flourish, organizations must seek to reduce segmentalism and instead encourage integration across divisions and functions (Kanter, 1985). Previous research demonstrates that innovation occurs within organizations through the development of new and more efficient administrative mechanisms (Hoffman and Hegarty, 1993). Entrepreneurial firms tend to make more systematic investments in employee skills and capabilities through training programmes (Hayton, 2005; Shipton et al., 2006) and research suggests that extensive employee training contributes to organizational innovation (Shipton et al., 2006). With CE, the roles played by actors at varying levels in the organization are not independent of each other (Phan et al., 2009). Hence the importance of promoting network ties across divisions, levels and functions for innovation – training is one way in which these networks can be facilitated (Kleinbaum and Tushman, 2008).

300


Individuals The organizational innovation process relies heavily on the existence of ‘change champions’ (Kanter, 1983), ‘intrapreneurs’ (Pinchot, 1985) or ‘entrepreneurial managers’ (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990) to stir the entrepreneurial pot and generate variations. Corporate entrepreneurs are managers or employees who do not follow the status quo of their co-workers and are seen as ‘visionaries who dream of taking the company in new directions’ (Kuratko and Goldsby, 2004, p. 13). Actors at different levels of the organization play CE roles – CE may be a top down as well as a bottom up enabled process (Phan et al., 2009). The level of entrepreneurship within the firm (that is, pursuit of opportunity) is critically dependent on the attitude of individuals within the firm (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Middle managers play a crucial role in providing support for autonomous strategic initiatives (Burgelman, 1983) and their perceptions of the CE environment are key to effective implementation (Hornsby et al., 2002). Through an evaluation of CE initiatives in four large US organizations, Thornberry (2003) found that coaching and business planning training initiatives remained an important – if not the most important – way of nurturing corporate entrepreneurs. Training can assist in injecting new values into the corporate culture, can assist in facilitating networks and help trigger the personal ‘transformation’ required for visionary leaders and ‘change champions’. In the following paragraphs, the issue of corporate entrepreneurship training (CET) is discussed in more detail. Corporate entrepreneurship training There is a growing realization that people are an important source of competitive advantage (Ruona and Gibson, 2004). Some firms attempt to develop superior human resources through investments in training and development (Hatch and Dyer, 2004). Training refers to a systematic approach to learning and development to improve individual, team and organizational effectiveness (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). Organizational training provision has expanded due to the increasingly popular view that people, rather than technology, represent the primary source of enduring competitive advantage (Ford, 1997). Development refers to the systematic efforts affecting individuals’ knowledge or skills for purposes of personal growth or future jobs and/or roles (Aguinis and Kraiger, 2009). A firm’s entrepreneurial behaviour is positively correlated with its efforts to put individuals in a position to detect opportunities: to train them to be able to do so and to reward them for doing so (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Corporate entrepreneurship training implies encouraging ‘emergent intentions and behaviours that deviate from the customary way of doing business’ (Heinonen, 2007, p. 312). Leaders of successful companies recognize that if entrepreneurially inclined employees’ skills are nurtured, they can be valuable contributors to a company’s success (Thompson, 2004). Corporate entrepreneurship programmes should take the organizational context and the organizational strategic objectives within that context into consideration. A CE training programme can tap into collective participant knowledge vis-à-vis the organization’s competitive environment and cultivate the entrepreneurial competencies required to navigate environmental uncertainties and complexity (Byrne and Fayolle, 2009). Even with training programmes in place, triggering entrepreneurship within corporate structures is not an easy task. In organizations in which innovation and entrepreneurship have been only minor themes in business strategy, there is likely to be an accumu-


301

lation of policies and practices that make major innovation difficult (Kanter, 1985). Entrepreneurial management struggles with the demands of administrative management. One key obstacle to CE is the enduring conflict between mature company management practices and those appropriate to get a new venture or project up and running (Sykes and Block, 1989). In order for entrepreneurial management to support creation of the ‘new’, it must put a stress on visionary leadership, ‘patient money’, planning flexibility, team continuity, stability, and inter-functional cooperation (Kanter, 1985). Behavioural and cognitive changes are needed by various actors, in varying levels, roles and functions. Employees and managers alike may need to adapt and change existing practices, behaviour and mindsets in order to make intrapreneurial projects a reality. Organizational routines ‘Routines’ are the starting block of conceptual analysis in two important models of organization change – organizational ecology and organizational learning (Miner, 1991). They are the regular, predictable and discernable actions and mental processes that pattern organizational activities: they are found in domains as diverse as product development, job design and human resource management (Galunic and Weeks, 2001). Routines are considered a reliable unit of analysis when considering evolution and change within organizations as they are more durable than individuals. They constitute a repeated pattern of behaviour that is bound by rules and customs that do not change very much from one iteration to another (Nelson and Winter, 1982). An individual may carry the goodwill and intention (Levitt and March, 1988) which results in the birth and persistence of a ‘routine’ within the context of their work (a strategy, cultural practice, rule or initiative for example) but this routine can outlive its inventor. The individual may leave the organization, while the routine remains. However, the new individual entering the job inherits the historical routines of his predecessors (Schulz, 2002). This understanding of organizational routines does not allow much manoeuvre for understanding routine change. Routine ‘mutation’ or ‘adaption’ was seen as a slow evolutionary process which emerged over time (Levitt and March, 1988; Nelson and Winter, 1982) divorced from the agent. However, more recent studies of organizational routines have revisited issues of agency and change. Routines have subsequently been defined as repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions involving multiple actors (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Indeed, the study of routines needs to address the impact of social and personalistic processes (Miner, 1991). More updated intra-organizational ecological models make room for both blind and deliberate mechanisms of selection: routines do not reproduce themselves, they are reproduced by human agents for reasons that must be explained rather than assumed (Galunic and Weeks, 2001). However, the literature on organizational routines does not address how ‘the people enacting a routine and the context in which it is enacted influence both a routine’s use at a given point in time and its change or persistence over time’ (Howard-Grenville, 2005, p. 618). If CE involves a disruption of the status quo, one would logically assume that successful CET needs to challenge some taken for granted organizational routines and trigger entrepreneurial individuals and teams challenging of these routines. Any evaluation of the impact of CET needs to examine whether training participants (the agents) now seek to change the taken for granted and ‘usual’ behaviours (routines) within their organization. Are training programmes one such context where routine change can be triggered?

302


Can an intrapreneurship/CE training programme change an individual’s interpretation or understanding of organizational routines in order for innovation and entrepreneurship to flourish? Can training provide an impetus for routine change at the individual level? In the following section, I describe my efforts thus far to uncover answers to these questions. 2 Research design The issue of research methods is not primarily one of right or wrong but rather a matter of ‘fit’, where the phenomenon and the knowledge interest of the researcher should guide the choice of method (Berglund, 2007). Given the paucity of research investigating the link between corporate entrepreneurship training and organizational routines, I have chosen Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) grounded theory methodology to guide this inquiry. Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research methodology that emphasizes the generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research. Rather than starting from hypotheses generation, the process begins with data collection. Data is collected by various methods and key themes are identified. I adopt this research approach in order to preliminarily investigate the ‘regular, predictable and discernable actions and mental processes that pattern’ teamwork approaches to innovation and intrepreneurship. In this chapter, I present my research thus far into one particular CE training programme. Given the centrality of this particular case and training programme, I will proceed with a brief outline of the programme before further detailing my research design decisions. For confidentiality purposes, the company implementing this training programme has been given the pseudoname FreCo. Below I present some background information as to the company and training programme context. Case in question: developing intrapreneurs at FreCo FreCo is a large telecommunications group serving more than 170 million customers in five continents. It counts 115 million mobile customers worldwide and more than 12 million broadband Internet (ADSL) users among its customers. For the past seven years, FreCo has delivered a corporate entrepreneurship training programme to some of its ‘high potential’ middle managers. The programme was designed and delivered in partnership with the executive education arm of a leading European business school. The training programme, referred to herein as the ‘Developing Intrapreneurs Program’ (DIP), is delivered over a three-month period to 25 middle managers at a time. The programme began in 2003 and is delivered to an average of three cohorts per year. The DIP aims to increase innovation and ‘intrapreneurial spirit’ among a select group of ‘high potential’ managers. Initially the training was introduced as voluntary but increasingly managers are ‘expected’ to participate in one of the company’s flagship training programmes. This particular programme has developed a name for itself in the company and is touted as a good option for motivated managers. Those selected are seen as ‘high potential’ managers with promising careers ahead of them in the FreCo group. Over the course of three to four months, managers attend three-week long interventions designed to enhance their ‘intrapreneurial’ skills. They are placed in teams of six; each team is purposely designed to maximize the functional and geographic diversity of its members. During the training sessions, participants are engaged in interactive workshops, lectures and team exercises in marketing, finance, strategy and team development. Themes


303

of innovation and ‘intrapreneuring’ are strongly emphasized throughout all sessions. In between the three intensive in-house training sessions, team members work together – online, via email, via conference calls and sometimes by way of physical meetings. By way of programme output, the respective teams (usually four groups of five or six per cohort) are given the task of developing a service or product innovation for the group. Each cohort innovation project is directed by an overriding theme which usually reflects a ‘hot’ organizational topic (that is, recent themes include ‘financial crisis’ or ‘social networking’). Two of the three-week training periods (the first and the last) allocate specific time for the groups to work on their innovation projects in specially allocated meeting rooms. In the interim, the teams work virtually on their innovation projects and are continuously monitored and supported by programme mentor or coach. The team mentor provides feedback on team development and progress – individuals can rely on this mentoring system as much (or as little) as they like. In the final week, each team presents their innovation project to the other participants and a jury made up of top level FreCo management, programme coordinators and human resource (HR) officials. While no innovation project is clearly labelled ‘the winner’, those teams who have identified a real potential ‘innovation’ may be given resources and backing to pursue their entrepreneurial project. Methodological choices A model research project must contain methodological fit between research question, prior work, research design, and theoretical contribution (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). Theory in management research falls along a continuum from nascent to mature (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). The subject in hand here – that of routine change in training, and more particularly intrapreneurship training is an under-researched theme in the training and corporate entrepreneurship literatures. In this light, this investigation falls into the category of nascent theory-building. Nascent theory proposes tentative answers to novel questions of how and why, often merely suggesting new connections among phenomena (Edmondson and McManus, 2007). As such, research in this vein should be guided by ‘open-ended inquiry about the phenomenon of interest’ (Edmondson and McManus, 2007, p. 1160). The methodological choices I have made in this research project have been guided by this framework. Despite the nascent state of theory, the research process must still be informed and guided by theoretical grounding. Numerous research design issues must be borne in mind. First, in looking at organizational evolution and change, one must consider the unit of analysis – this may be (1) routines and competencies within organizations, (2) organizations as a whole or (3) entire organizational communities or population (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006). In this instance I am interested in uncovering the routines which participants deem important in order to become a corporate entrepreneur. I am studying these routines in the context of one organization. However, given that is a large global group, its training programme is made up of participants from different divisions (mobile, business, and so on), geographical regions (Romania, Poland, Egypt, France, and so on) and functions (marketing, technical, engineering, finance, and so on). Some participants may hail from previously acquired national mobile operators. As such, there is a certain degree of hetereogenity of organizational culture, practices and routines which one could expect to exist. While each participant may be based in one organizational context, they

304


come with varying organizational routines. Thus I am interested in the participant/team/ routine dynamic. This work draws on subjective accounts of individual and team performance. As such it may be susceptible to issues of self-reporting bias. While self-reports often are the subject of much criticism (Schmitt, 1994; Spector, 1994), concern with self-reports is often misplaced. Self-report research may be used as a preliminary technique to determine whether it is worthwhile bothering with more expensive and time-consuming efforts to examine a problem (Scmitt, 1994). In order to limit the bias which may arise from self-reporting or subjective measures, I intend to question other participants and seek information from the team mentor in order to get a more balanced view of the routines which participants ‘bring to the table’. Another important issue to consider is that of selection bias and the need to account for the sense of indeterminacy which underlies evolutionary approaches. In other words, researchers must be careful not to focus only on successful outcomes but must also examine failure (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006), that is, a lot can be learned about entrepreneurship by looking at the efforts of failed entrepreneurs. In this instance, I am thus concerned with those teams whose innovation projects continue to fruition as well as those that do not. Data gathering In nascent theory research, the type of data should be ideally ‘qualitative, initially openended data that need to be interpreted for meaning’ as the researcher proceeds. Methods may include ‘interviews; observations; obtaining documents or other material from field sites relevant to the phenomena of interest’ (Edmondson and McManus, 2007: 1160). I propose to engage in a number of data gathering stages (the first of which I have recently completed). These stages are outlined in the paragraphs which follow. Stage 1: observation and preliminary interviews In this first stage, I sat in on the training programme and familiarized myself with the programme structure, content and participant profile. I observed participants interacting in various pedagogical scenarios which involved games, strategy mapping, brainstorming and team challenges. I spoke with participants informally on breaks between training sessions and also discussed course content with various professors who teach on the course. I also met with the program director (from the business school) as well as the HR development manager at FreCo to discuss broad programme objectives and overall impressions of participant experiences and evaluation procedures. I familiarized myself with course documents and brochures (staff training brochure, internal feedback on the programme results) and perused the course teaching materials (case studies, exercises, CD-ROMs, competency evaluation sheets, readings, and so on). Stage 2: semi-structured interviews The second stage involved 12 semi-structured interviews with members of units throughout FreCo who engaged in the corporate entrepreneurship training programme. They were from two different training cohorts. I questioned the first group (cohort 15) in the last week of their training and the second group (cohort 16) in the first week of their training. The interviews were semi-structured but broadly covered the areas listed in Box 18.1.


BOX 18.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

305

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: COHORT 15 (WEEK 3)

Why did you decide to take this course? Tell me about your experience of the course to date? What appealed to you about this course? What did you find difficult about this course? Do you think that you gained from this training? What changes have occurred for you as a result of this training? Will you approach your work differently as a result of this course? In what way?

When gathering data it is important to be flexible enough to accommodate the richness inherent in the experiences of the participants while staying focused on the research question and the phenomenon explored (Berglund, 2007). My dealings with the first two or three participants from cohort 15 showed that the team experience was continuously referred to by participants. In these interviews, I simply asked people what the training involved for them, how their teamwork had progressed and what they thought were their main training ‘take-aways’. It appeared that their perception of their team dynamic and team members had a strong impact on their impact of the programme in general. I also realized that individuals had taken the course with very different expectations in mind and had varying degrees of information as to what the course entailed. Participants roles differed significantly and they viewed the training programme’s value very much in terms of what ‘new’ material they were exposed to. This then led me to slightly alter my questions for the proceeding interviews (see Box 18.2), in order to allow me to explore these

BOX 18.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

REVISED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

What is your role in the company? How did you find out about this course? Why did you decide to take this course? What do you expect to get out of this course? Tell me about your experience of the course to date? How has your teamwork experience been thus far? What appealed to you about this course? What did you find difficult about this course? Do you think that you gained from this training? What for you is an intrapreneur? How do you rate yourself as an intrapreneur? What changes have occurred for you as a result of this training? Will you approach your work differently as a result of this course? In what way?

306


issues a little more. Those from cohort 16, were only in the first stage of their training so I asked only questions 1–5. Stage 3: observation I propose to observe subsequent training participants in their teams looking at their interaction, exchanges and interaction when they are engaged in team exercises and time-out for group work. I intend to follow teams over the threemonth period, keeping in regular contact with participants via email as well as receiving feedback from the team mentor. By repeatedly observing a senior management team over time, Edmondson (2002) was able to identify patterns of behaviour that members were not consciously aware of. Thus multiple observations of the same group over time enable one to access changes in the patterns of actions and mental processes (that is, routines) of participants as they engage in their innovation project as a team. Stage 4: in-depth interviews with programme participants Time is crucial to our understanding of team processes as it is time-based rhythms that shape how teams manage their behaviour (Marks et al., 2001). Thus I will carry out observations at each of the three week interventions (when teams physically work together) by sitting in on their team meetings and also ask for access to the email exchange between specific groups over the three-month period. I will carry out interviews with all team members at the outset of teamwork, during the project and nearing project completion. I will also try to follow up group members six months after their programme completion to inquire as to the status of their innovation project as well as their thoughts and feelings in hindsight. 3 Preliminary data analysis and findings In qualitative research efforts, there is often significant overlap between the data collection and analysis phases (Makela and Turcan, 2007). I am still in the early stages of data analysis where researchers can engage in ‘controlled opportunism’ which allows the researcher to take advantage of the ‘uniquenesss of a specific case and the emergence of new themes to improve resultant theory’ (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 539). In nascent theorybuilding data analysis should be oriented toward ‘thematic content analysis and coding for evidence of constructs’ (Edmondson and McManus, 2007, p. 1160). In Figure 18.1 I present some of the dominant ‘themes’ that I have identified thus far from my data collection (stages 1 and 2). In the data analysis phase, the grounded theorist attempts to conceptualise, reduce, elaborate and relate data and categories to integrate them as a novel theory (Makela and Turcan, 2007). One way to do this is to conduct coding in three phases – open coding, axial coding and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Throughout the course of these three stages, categories or ‘themes’ are generated, linked together and constructed around a ‘skeleton’ frame (Makela and Turcan, 2007). The central category needs to be identified and major categories are related to it by propositions. I feel that ‘the team experience’ may be categorized as a central category. My initial findings indicate that a participant’s team experience impacts upon their intention to evoke routine change. ‘Team experience’ here refers to general functioning of the team and the participant’s impression of its effectiveness. In cohort 15 (the programme which I observed participants from start to finish), the most successful innovation project was undertaken by a group whose members ‘swopped’ functional roles, spent a lot of time on getting to

307

Figure 18.1

Emergent themes

‘It reinforced for me the benefits of working alone’ (T)

together’ (A)

program. We worked very separately and not often

and as a result I don’t feel I fully benefited from the

‘We experienced real difficulties in our team dynamic

much and instead they hang back and observe’ (K)

some very strong personalities … others don’t say

‘There is a lot of diversity in our group … there are

the others in my group … ’ (M)

and I know I talk too much and get too excited for

thing, we sometimes have difficulty … I am Egyptian

‘It is difficult for us to get along … it was a cultural

conference call among all group members … ’ (D)

start we dedicated at least two hours a week to a

‘We were quite good for keeping in touch … at the

Interpersonal processes

surprised’ (R)

organization … some people I worked with were really

‘I already discussed some concepts back in the

things in the same way’ (F)

‘When I go back to my team now, I will not approach

perceived by others’ (S)

‘I learned a lot about my own attitude and how I was

Individual development

‘In our team we decided to each swop our original function … for example, if you were based

result, we had to compromise a lot in order to achieve consensus’ (R)

for the project’s marketing’ (P)

energy and creativity and really bright people. From the

engineering background and I wanted to learn a

creative’ (A)

bit more about the marketing end of things … ’ (J)

‘I took the course as I have a mostly

group values. My team was really energetic and

start we established a common culture through asserting

if you worked in IT, you were made responsible

‘I was lucky to arrive in a ‘good’ team with a lot of

in marketing you were assigned the finance role,

Cross-functional training

the advantages of building a good team’ (F)

around me – stop and delegate more. I also saw

people with lots of experience and different ideas. As a

‘There are lots of strong personalities in our group –

Team experience

CENTRAL CATEGORY:

‘I will now try to grow/develop those who are

individual’ (R)

case, the collective proves weaker than the

‘People were afraid to take leadership. In our

Leadership

308


know each other, built their team around a set of core team values (which they often used as a reference point when there was conflict) and made many references to what an impact this programme had had on them. While this is one isolated case, it was clear that there was something special about this group which allowed them to achieve an innovative outcome and feel positive about carving an ‘intrapreneurial’ niche in the organization. Propositions generated in such a research process as the above are validated by comparing them with raw data (Makela and Turcan, 2007). While my study is in its early stages, some tentative propositions could include the following: P1: P2a: P2b: P3a: P3b: P4:

Training participants with a positive team experience are more likely to feel they had learned something following training. Training participants with a positive team experience are more likely to be in teams characterized by effective interpersonal processes. Training participants in teams characterized by effective interpersonal processes are more likely to intend to engage in routine change. Training participants with a positive team experience are more likely to have learned or grown in leadership capability. Training participants who felt they have grown in leadership capability/ understanding are more likely to engage in routine change. Training participants who take on a function in their team which is different to their usual function are more likely to intend to engage in routine change.

Grounded theorists in entrepreneurship will benefit from carefully comparing their results with the results of prior studies (Makela and Turcan, 2007). In this instance, previous work on corporate entrepreneurship generally uses the organization rather than the individual as the unit of analysis. Additionally, training efforts in this domain have not been widely studied. There is also a lack of empirical investigation with respect to the potential of training to evoke routine change. In the section below, I draw on literature from the innovation and team-based literatures to contextualize these preliminary findings. Discussion In this ongoing research project, I am attempting to discover whether an intrapreneurship training programme can impact on an individual’s intention to evoke routine change. Such programmes often focus on the importance of vision, leadership and teamwork skills in the pursuit of innovation. My findings point to the impact which team experience may have in the CET context. Companies increasingly rely on teams and cross-functional teams to continually innovate products and processes (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Lovelace et al., 2001). Several factors may facilitate or inhibit innovation at the group level. A group’s structure – its size, tenure and diversity – contribute to the innovativeness it can affect. Team diversity in training impacts on the participant’s perception of organizational routines. Executive education programmes today typically involve team-based experiential exercises with participants derived from assorted functions and divisions in order to aid the ‘cascading of learning experiences’ (Conger and Xin, 2000). In CE training programmes, individuals greatly benefit from exposure to a variety of participants from various different divisions,


309

functions and backgrounds. These individuals bring with them a variety of teamworking routines and approaches to innovation. Training participants can benefit from the diversity of their team – and the subsequent knowledge-sharing which results. Knowledge is central to innovation activities (Kuratko, 2006) and organizations can benefit from the ‘creative abrasion’ which occurs when different knowledge bases are brought together through open discussion between individuals with different perspectives (LeonardBarton, 1995). If the potential conflict is successfully managed, the result can be new, creative and exciting ideas (Roffe, 1999). However, group diversity alone is insufficient to explain innovativeness (Agrell and Gustafson, 1996). For innovation, good interpersonal skills and the ability to work well in a team are paramount. Teamwork is important in CE training in order for participants to learn how to create innovation in a team context as well as exercise effective management and interpersonal skills that nurture individual development. Team interactions over the course of a training programme can strongly impact a person’s learning and training experience. Teams which exhibit sound authority structures, psychological safety and stability have been found to promote improved coordination and learning among members (Edmondson et al., 2001). This learning may lead to a renewed view of organizational routines and subsequently improved innovation capabilities. Team research also suggests that diversity is a double edged sword and that it can both impede and promote innovation (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). However the negative impact of diversity at the team level can be avoided through encouraging greater negotiation and conflict resolution skills (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). Uncovering training effectiveness involves identifying what affects learning before, during, and after training (Ford, 1997). This suggests that for CE training to be effective, the integration of soft skills such as negotiation and conflict resolution skills into the curriculum are paramount. The leadership component of CET is crucial. Having a strong leader with vision is important for the success of corporate entrepreneurship projects (Bouchard, 2008). Authority structures can promote or inhibit collective learning (Edmondson et al., 2001). Placing a supervisor with an appreciation of creativity alongside employees who are motivated to create is a promising scenario for innovation (Amabile, 1983). King (1995) found that creative team members need freedom and that effective leaders select team members based on their ability to work alongside their team colleagues rather than their technical skills. Training team leaders to exhibit supportive, consultative or noncontrolling communication behaviour enhances the creative efforts of team members and contributes to the creation of a creation-friendly environment (Thacker, 1997). Companies who want to promote creativity should provide their leaders/supervisors with relationship training (Amabile, 1983). As teams become even more widely used to promote innovation in organizations, the need for team leadership skills may become even more acute (Edmondson et al., 2001). Conclusion This study is clearly in its formative stages. The theory used and applied here needs to be further probed and investigated. Corporate entrepreneurship calls for innovative practices and initiatives by employees throughout the organization. Sometimes these innovative practices may require a reinvention of organizational routines. Individuals enact and

310


reproduce organizational routines. My findings suggest that a training experience may trigger revelation or questioning of routines. Many participants felt that the team experience was an extremely important element of the training programme. It appears that a team’s diversity, interpersonal processes and leadership may impact participants’ openness to new routines. Perhaps the ‘safer’ individuals feel in their teams, the more likely they are to open themselves up to changing particular practices or mindsets. As a result of this exploratory study, I have been alerted to an interesting research proposition: the extent to which a team experience in training can compel individuals to evoke routine changes in their approaches to innovation. Future research could also address the extent to which routine change manifests itself in leadership, team diversity and interpersonal processes. Due to the nature of this study, causal relationships are difficult to discern however. A longitudinal inquiry with both quantitative and qualitative research methods may be more appropriate to really unearth what changes are taking place in participants’ interpretations of their organizational routines. Measuring this is no easy task given the range of factors which may impact on an individual’s intention to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour. A researcher must also consider how possible method bias explanations and research design limitations might affect the generalizability of the results he or she reports (Schmitt, 1994). In this research project. I have so far looked at only one example of a CET programme. The participants are members of one organization and thus further study is needed to see the effects of training in other contexts. Despite these limitations, this study may be viewed as a first step in preparing the ground for more hypothesesdriven theory building and testing in the area of corporate entrepreneurship training. References Agrell, A. and R. Gustafson (1996), ‘Innovation and creativity in work groups’, in M. West (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Chichester: Wiley. Aguinis, H. and K. Kraiger (2009), ‘Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations and society’, Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–74. Aldrich, H. and M. Ruef (2006), Organisations Evolving, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amabile, T.M. (1983), The Social Psychology of Creativity, New York: Springer-Verlag. Ancona, D.G. and D.F. Caldwell (1992), ‘Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance’, Organization Science 3 (3), 321–41. Becker, M.C. (2004), ‘Organizational routines: a review of the literature’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (4), 643–77. Berglund, H. (2007), ‘Researching entrepreneurship as lived experience’, in H. Neergaard and J. Parm Ulhoi (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 75–93. Binks, M., K. Starkey and C. Mahon (2006), ‘Entrepreneurship education and the business school’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18 (1), 1–18. Bouchard, V. (2008), Intrapreneuriat – Innovation et croissance: Entreprendre dans l’entreprise, Paris: Dunod. Bresnen M., A. Goussevskaia and J. Swan (2005), ‘Organizational routines, situated learning and processes of change in project-based organizations’, Project Management Journal, 36 (3), 27–41. Bunch, K. (2007), ‘Training failure as a consequence of organizational culture’, Human Resource Development Review, 6 (2), 142–63. Burgelman, R.A. (1983), ‘A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2), 223–44. Burgelman, R.A. (1991), ‘Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaption: theory and field research’, Organization Science, 2 (3), 239–61. Byrne J. and A. Fayolle (2009), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship training evaluation: a model and a new research perspective’, Industry and Higher Education, 23 (3), 1–13. Cohen, M.D., R. Burkhart, G. Dosi, M. Egidi, L. Marengo, M. Warglien and S. Winter (1996), ‘Routines and


311

other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 653–97. Conger J.A. and K. Xin (2000), ‘Executive education in the 21st century’, Journal of Management Education, 24 (1), 73–101. Cornwall, J.R. and B. Perlman (1990), Organizational Entrepreneurship, Homewood, IL: Irwin. Covin, J.G. and D.P. Slevin (1991), ‘A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (1), 7–24. Cyert, R.M. and J.G. March (1963), A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Czernich, C. (2004), When Ideas meet Organizations: The Survival of Entrepreneurial Ventures Inside the Established Firm, Stockholm: Institute of International Business. Edmondson, A. (2002), ‘The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations’, Organization Science, 13 (2), 128–146. Edmondson, A. and S. McManus (2007), ‘Methodological fit in management field research’, Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1155–79. Edmondson, A., R. Bohmer and G. Pisano (2001), ‘Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4), 685–716. Eisenhardt, K. (1989), ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–50. Feldman, M. (2000), ‘Organizational routines as a source of continuous change’, Organization Science, 11 (6), 611–29. Feldman, M. and B. Pentland (2003), ‘Reconceptualising organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118. Ford, J. (1997), Advances in training research and practice: an historical perspective in J.K. Ford, S. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas and M. Teachout (eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galunic, D. and J. Weeks (2001), ‘Intraorganizational ecology’, in J. Baum (ed.), A Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell. Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, IL: Aldine. Goldstein, I.L and J.K. Ford (2002), Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Belmont. Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1984), ‘Structural inertia and organizational change’, Amercian Sociological Review, 49 (2), 149–64. Hatch, N. and J. Dyer (2004), ‘Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, 25 (12), 1155–78. Hayton, J., (2005), ‘Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: a review of empirical research’, Human Resource Management, 15 (1), 21–41. Heinonen, J. (2007), ‘An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate entrepreneurship at university level’, Education and Training, 49 (4), 310–24. Hoffman R. and H. Hegarty (1993), ‘Top management influences on innovations: effects of executive characteristics and social culture’, Journal of Management, 19 (3), 549–74. Hornsby, J., D. Kuratko and S. Zahra (2002), ‘Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale’, Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (3), 253–73. Howard-Grenville, J. (2005), ‘The persistence of flexible organizational routines: the role of agency and organizational context’, Organization Science, 16 (6), 618–36. Ireland, R., D. Kuratko and M. Morris (2006), ‘A health audit for corporate entrepreneurship: innovation at all levels: part 1’, The Journal of Business Strategy, 27 (1), 10–17. Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work, London: Unwin Hyman. Kanter, R.M. (1985), ‘Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies’, Journal of Business Venturing, 1 (1), 47–60. Kanter, R.M., (2000), ‘When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations’, in R. Swedberg (ed.), Entrepreneurship, The Social Science View, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kets de Vries, M. and K. Korotov (2007), ‘Creating transformation executive education programs’, Academy of Management, Learning & Development, special issue, 6 (3), 375–87. King, S. (1995), ‘Managing creativity and learning’, Management Development Review, 8 (5), 32–4. Kleinbaum, A. and M. Tushman (2008), ‘Managing corporate social networks’, Harvard Business Review, July–August, 26–7. Kraiger K., D. McLinden and W. Casper (2004), ‘Collaborative planning for training impact’, Human Resource Management, 43 (4), 337–51.

312


Kuratko, D.F. (2006), Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice, 7th edn, Mason, OH: Thomson SouthWestern. Kuratko D. and M. Goldsby (2004), ‘Corporate entrepreneurs of rogue middle managers? A framework for ethical corporate entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 13–30. Kuratko, D., R. Montagno and J. Hornsby (1990), ‘Developing an intrapreneurial assessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment’, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 49–58. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Well-springs of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Levinthal, D. and J. March (1993), ‘The myopia of learning’, Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. Levitt, B. and J. March (1988), ‘Organizational learning’, Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–40. Lovelace, K., D.L. Shapiro and L. Weingart (2001), ‘Maximizing cross-functional new product teams innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 779–93. Makela, M. and R. Turcan (2007), ‘Building grounded theory in entrepreneurship research’, in H. Neergaard and J. Parm Ulhoi (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. March, J. and H. Simon (1958), Organizations, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Marks, M., J. Mathieu and S. Zaccaro (2001), ‘A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (3), 356–76. Miner, A. (1991), ‘Organizational evolution and the social ecology of jobs’, American Sociological Review, 56 (6), 772–84. Miner, A.S. (1994), ‘Seeking adaptative advantage’, in J.A.C. Baum and J. Singh (eds), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., pp. 76–89. Nelson, R. and S. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge: Belknap Press/ Harvard University Press. Phan, P.H., M. Wright, D. Ucbasaran and W.L. Tan (2009), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: current research and future directions’, Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (3), 197–205. Pinchot, G. (1985), Intrapreneuring, New York: Harper and Row. Porter, M. (1990), ‘The competitive advantage of nations’, Harvard Business Review, March–April, 73–91. Roffe, I. (1999), ‘Innovation and creativity in organizations: a review of the implications for training and development’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (4/5), 224–37. Ruona, W. and S. Gibson (2004), ‘The making of twenty-first century HR: an analysis of the convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD’, Human Resource Management, 43 (1), 49–66. Schmitt, N. (1994), ‘The importance of theory and measurement’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 (5), 393–8. Schulz, M., (2002), ‘Organizational learning’, in J.A.C Baum (ed.) The Blackhall Companion to Organization, Oxford: Blackwell, 415–51. Sharma P. and J. Chrisman (1999), ‘Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23 (3), 11–28. Shipton, H., M.A. West, J. Dawson, K. Birdi and P. Malcolm (2006), ‘HRM as a predictor of innovation’, Human Resource Management Journal, 16 (1), 3–27. Spector, P.E. (1994), ‘Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a controversial method’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 (5), 385–92. Stevenson, H. and J. Jarillo (1990), ‘A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management’, Strategic Management Journal, 11 (5), 17–27. Strauss, A.L. and J. Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sykes H.B. and Z. Block (1989), ‘Corporate venturing obstacles: sources and solutions’, Journal of Business Venturing, 4 (3), 159–67. Thacker, R. (1997), ‘Team leader style: enhancing the creativity of employees in teams’, Training for Quality, 5 (4), 146–9. Thompson, J. (2004), ‘Innovation through people’, Management Decision, 42 (9), 1082–94. Thornberry, N.E. (2003), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be entrepreneurs’, The Journal of Management Development, 22 (4), 329–44.

Index Abhann Productions 32 accreditation of prior learning (APL) 54 Achleitner, A.-K. 248 Acker, Joan 155, 156–7 Ahl, H. 154, 159, 162 Albert, P. 176 Allen, Paul 128 Aloulou, W. 170 altruism 15, 23 Aouni, Z. 168, 178 Ardichvili, A. 229, 231 Arlotto, J. 88, 95, 96 artists/scientists as entrepreneurs 5, 183–93 innovation by 184, 185–7 as risk takers 188–9 Art-Price (web site) 188 arts, the, see creative industries Arts Council (Ireland) 29 Ashoka (company) 22 Ashridge Management School Virtual Learning Resource Centre (UK) 263 assessment process of entrepreneurial competence, see entrepreneurial competence of entrepreneurship education 258–9 student examinations 7, 37–8, 39 of student skills 73–4 Atamer, T. 122 Audet, J. 167 Australia 73, 75, 113, 244 Austria 249, 253, 256–7, 260 Bagger, Stein 46 Baker, T. 44–5 Baker, W.E. 86 Bandura, A. 64 Barnes, Clive 29 Baron, R.A. 55 Barry, F. 233 Batson, C. 14, 15 Bayad, M. 176 Béchard, J.-P. 166, 169, 176 behavioural change 297, 301 pro-social behaviour 14, 15, 20–21, 22, 23 behaviourist analysis 168, 171, 306 Beranger, J.R. 88 Berger, P. 157

Biemans, H. 58 Biggs, J. 74, 75 Bing Wu 128 Bird, B. 194, 195, 196, 197, 202, 203 Birdthistle, N. 226, 239 Birenbaum, M. 58, 59 Birley, S. 86 Black, P. 59 Blondeau, Marcel 188 Bonneau, J. 179 Bonnet, J. 174 Bourcieu, S. 88, 95 Bourion, C. 88 Boyatzis, R.E. 194, 195, 196 Bradley, F. 229 Brand, M. 184 Brazil 212 Brin, Sergey 128 Brock, D. 22 Brookfield, S. 72 Brown, S.L. 210 Bruyat, C. 83, 178 Buchholz, R.A. 95 Burgoyne, J. 250 Burnham, J.B. 232, 233 business angels, see venture capital business dynamics/structure 209, 210, 211, 212, 220 absorptive capacity 212–13 dynamic capabilities 212–13 organizational change, see organizational change punctuated equilibrium 210, 213 turbulent 210, 213 see also institutional culture business opportunities, identification of 6, 30, 55–6, 61, 190–91, 196, 201, 202, 242, 261–2 in cultural industries 27, 31–6, 27–9, 41–2 business planning 49, 87, 98, 99, 100, 191, 216, 300–301 Student Business Plan Competition (China) 216 business schools 51, 86, 112, 284, 289 in China 219–20 in Europe 253 in France 86–7, 88–109 in US 258, 263 business succession 256, 260, 264

313

314

Index

Bygrave, W. 178 Byrne, C.J. 229 Cambridge University 263 camp principle 47 Canada 113, 124, 125, 126–8, 129 entrepreneurs in 144–50, 231 higher education 123, 125, 126–8 minority groups 126 Cantillon, Richard 39 career development 63–4 Carey, C. 110 Carnoy, Martin 219 Carr, John 28 Carswell, M. 57 case studies 2, 86–7, 98 in creative industries 25, 30–42 development/writing of 33, 36–7 in entrepreneurial expertise 44–5 in examination process 7, 37–8, 39 on North African entrepreneurs in France 172–9 situated learning as 46–7 Casson, Mark 122, 126, 129 Central/Eastern Europe 211 Russia 212 Chaganti, R. 88 Chandler, G.N. 55–6, 61 change management 209–10, 213–14 continuous change 213, 214 punctuated equilibrium 210, 213 turbulent 210, 213 see also management; organizational change charity/charities 20, 112 Charney, A.H. 110, 250 Chile 212 China 6, 98, 124, 125–8, 209–10, 215–22 cultural/social structure 209 institutional culture 6, 209–24 as an emerging economy 6, 98, 209–10, 215–16 entrepreneurs in 138–44 higher education 123, 124, 125, 126–8, 216–18 minority groups 126 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 6, 215–16, 218–19 China Europe International Business School 219–20 Chrisman, J.J. 88, 298 Clark, B.R. 274, 275, 277 Clenet, J. 177 coaction theory 71, 72, 79–83 cognitive abilities 55–6

cognitive psychology 168–9 Collett, C. 244 commercial entrepreneurship 13, 141–5 Community Similarity Index 71–2, 75, 85 company creation/failure 66, 87, 99, 91, 97, 103, 104, 119, 127, 154, 167, 168, 170–76, 178–9, 182, 193, 217, 229, 242, 249, 255–7, 260 barriers to 261, 264 ‘gazelles’ concept 249, 254 joint ventures 210–11, 215, 242, 257, 262–3 competence-based learning 54, 58, 194–206 competency, see entrepreneurial competency competition/competitive advantage 187–8, 211, 212, 214–15, 297, 300 in creative industries 25, 27–8, 32 Conger, J.A. 197, 308 Cooney, T.M. 232. 236 cooperative systems 1, 6–7, 226 Cope, J. 168, 169 Coron, C. 123 corporate entrepreneurship 8, 87–8, 102, 103–4, 231, 297–312 change champions concept 300 definition 298 research on 300, 302–10 methodology 303–6 training in 300–301, 302–10 cost–benefit analysis 15 Covin, J.D. 86, 87 Cox, L.W. 195 creative industries (CIs) 2, 29–42 case studies in 25, 30–42 as competitive 25, 27–8, 32 management of 34–5, 36 spin-off ventures 32, 33–4, 35, 42 creativity, see innovation Cuddy, J. 228 cultural issues 210–11, 212, 214 in China 209 in Ireland 26, 27–9, 30–31, 42, 226, 227–32 see also institutional culture Czech Republic 88 Dall’Alba, G. 64 Danjou, I. 171 Davidson, P. 229 Davis, M. 22 De Faoite, D. 238 decision-making 6, 14–16, 46, 55–6, 197, 198, 201, 202 Denmark 46 Derby University entrepreneurial learning team 7, 274, 279–96

Index changes/conflicts experienced by 7, 279–81, 286–7, 289–94 Energising Enterprise event 7, 280, 286–7 survey of 287–9 Déry, R. 170 DeTienne, D.R. 55–6 developmental entrepreneurship 153 DeVos, Richard 128 Dewey, J. 72 Dickson, P.H. 110 Dimov, D. 87, 96 Dineley, Thomas 28 Doherty, Moya 31, 32, 41, 42 Dolabela, F. 191 Douglas, E. 170 Drayton, Bill 22 Dreisler, P. 170 Drucker, Peter 184 Duhamel, O. 88 Du Rietz, A. 154 East Midlands Science Enterprise Network (EMSEN) (UK) 281–2, 283, 284, 292 Easterby-Smith, M. 250 The Economist 190 Ecuador entrepreneurial competencies survey 6, 197–206 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 197–204 Edmondson, A. 306 egoism 15, 21 Eisenhardt, K.M. 87, 210 Elfring, T. 55 Ely, R. 155 emerging economies 209 China as 6, 98, 209–10, 215–16 Ecuador as 6, 197–206 as entrepreneurial 209–24 Eminet, A. 88 empathy 2, 13–16, 18, 22 definition 15, 23 employment/unemployment 218, 248 part-time entrepreneurs 257, 260 employment creation, see job creation Ensley, M.D. 55 entrepreneurial competence, assessment of 2, 3, 54–67 assessment quality 54, 57 criterion-based referencing 59 difficulties in 55, 58–9 in Ecuador 6, 197–206 evidence-based 63 formative 56, 57 individualized 57–9, 60, 62

315

methodology 57–63 as standard-setting 62–3 student involvement 58–9, 60 summative 56–7 entrepreneurial competencies/expertise 5–6, 44–5, 46, 55–6, 60–62, 64–5, 178, 182, 239, 241–2, 254–5, 259–60, 262 definition 194, 195 literature surveys on 196–7, 198, 203 personal qualities 122, 172, 174–5, 182, 183–4 research on 6, 194–206 self-education 122, 123, 125, 128 entrepreneurial intention 122, 172, 174, 239, 241–2, 254–6, 257, 259–60, 261 entrepreneurial opportunity 14, 51–2, 190–91, 242 entrepreneurial process 1, 32, 168, 170–71 gestation activities 168 entrepreneurial university concept 249, 274–8, 291–2 entrepreneurs, as educators 2, 3, 43–53, 96, 98, 100–101, 102, 114–15, 118, 239, 260–61 best practice teaching 44–5 as didactic 47–52 problems with 45, 46–7 selection of 46–7, 51–2 situated learning and 46–7, 48, 49 value of 44, 45–7 entrepreneurs, as role models 45–6, 48 entrepreneurship as an art 30, 170–71 corporate 8, 87–8, 102, 103–4, 231, 297–312 commercial 13, 14–15 definition 39, 54, 55, 87, 97, 99, 119, 122–3, 129, 170, 178, 183–4, 191 in developed/emerging economies, comparison of 153, 209–24 higher education and, see higher education institutions importance of 1, 86, 88, 90, 110, 153, 225, 229, 248 literature surveys on 86, 89–91, 104, 171, 211–12 research on 92, 118, 170–72, 209, 210, 216, 302–10 as a science 30, 170–71 social, see social entrepreneurship strategic 87 typology 124, 132–50, 230–31 entrepreneurship education course design 7, 13, 43, 52, 54, 56, 113, 114, 118, 153, 166–7, 169–70, 176–7, 191–2, 219–21, 222, 250, 258–64, 271–3, 302–10

316

Index

definition 63, 64 differences in 3–4, 71–150, 175–6 difficulties in 13, 43, 45, 46–7, 102–3, 104, 166, 170–71 importance of 55, 100–104, 110, 115–16, 126–7, 170, 225, 242, 248 international practices 1–13, 92, 122–50, 209–10, 217–18, 229 literature surveys 86, 89–91, 104, 111–13, 157–60, 164, 250–53, 274–8 methods 2–3, 7, 13–67, 87–8, 95, 99, 102–3, 112, 241, 274–96 professional practice, experience in 58, 64, 254–5 research on 63–4, 113–20, 123–50, 251–6, 264–5, 287–9, 302–10 see also learning process entertainment industry, see creative industries ESCP-EAP business school, Paris 92–104 ethical issues, see social entrepreneurship ethnic minorities, as entrepreneurs in France 5, 166–82 case study 172–9 education of 166–7, 178 support for 166–9, 178 see also minority groups European Commission: Survey on Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe 253 European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General 43, 45, 248–9, 250 European Credit Transfer System 263 European Foundation for Entrepreneurial Research (EFER) 248, 253, 263 European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) 248, 253 European Institute of Administrative Affairs (INSEAD) 261 European Union (EU) 248–9 entrepreneurship studies 248–9, 250–53 Lisbon Strategy 248 evaluation, see assessment process Evertsen, J. 228 experimental learning theory (ELT) 18, 21 explicit knowledge 220–21 Facchini, F. 88 facilitators, educators as 80, 82 Fayolle, Alain 54, 56, 64, 92, 103, 122, 123, 126, 129, 166, 169, 170, 171, 177, 250 female underperformance hypothesis 154; see also women entrepreneurs Fendt, J. 95

Filion, Louis-Jacques 88, 123, 129, 166, 169, 172, 174, 177, 178, 191 financing, see venture capital Fitzsimons, P. 228, 229 Flatley, Michael 32, 36, 41 Fleming, P. 242 Fletcher, W. 35 Fogarty, M. 226 foreign direct investment (FDI) 210, 211, 219, 227, 232, 236, 243; see also venture capital France 1, 4, 24, 86–7, 88–109, 124, 125, 126–8, 129 China, French companies in 98 corporate entrepreneurship 8, 297–312 higher education 86, 123, 125, 126–8 minority groups 126 African immigrants 5, 166–7, 172–82 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 170, 174, 175, 178, 182 Frese, M. 65 Gailly, B. 166, 169, 170, 177 Garavan, T. 226, 242 Gartner, W.B. 44–5, 168 Garvin, T. 232 Gas Parishville, A. 229, 231 Gates, Bill 128 Gatewood, E. 159 Gee, Simon 281, 283 Gélinier, Octave 123 Gelsenkirchen Declaration on institutional entrepreneurial management 275–6 gender issues 229, 231, 257 in institutional culture 155, 156–7 second generation 115–16, 162 see also women entrepreneurs Germany 88, 248–73, 292 government policy 254, 255–6 higher education 248–9, 251–2, 253, 258–65 knowledge-intensive industries 253 Gibb, A.A. 61–2, 79, 276–7, 284 Glaser, B. 302 Global Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 225, 229, 238, 253 Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS) 253 GLOBE study 232 Goldsby, N.C. 88 Goodbody Economic Consultants 228 Goujet, R. 177 government policy 30, 51 on business funding 249, 255–6 in Germany 254, 255–6 in Ireland 30, 226, 231, 232–7

Index in UK 115–16, 118, 119, 120, 277–8, 279, 292–3 Green, R.P. 157 Greene, P.G. 88 Gretzky, Wayne 190 grounded theory-based research 302, 306, 308 Gudeman, D.A. 86 Guinness 32, 35 Gullkers, J. 58 Gundry, L.K. 87, 88, 157 Guo Guangchang 128 Hagen University for Distance Education 259, 263 Hanley, M. 236–7 Hannon, P. 110, 111, 250, 277 Harlen, W. 57 Harvard Business School 258, 263 Haskell, E.F. 71, 72, 79; see also coaction theory Hayton, J.C. 61, 62 Hayward, L.M. 72 Head, Richard 28 Heath, R. 73 Hegarty, C. 84 Heinemann, D. 261 Henrekson, M. 154 Henry, C. 110, 195, 250, 258 Hernandez, E.-M. 168, 170, 171, 178 heroic entrepreneur concept 4, 229 hic et nunc learning framework 72–3, 78, 83, 84 student reflection in 72–3, 77–9 higher education institutions (HEIs) entrepreneurial university concept 249, 274–8, 291–2 European Credit Transfer System 263 examination process 7, 37–8, 39 management of 115, 284–5, 291, 292 higher education institutions, entrepreneurship education in 4, 110–11, 112, 122–50, 248–53 assessment of 258–9 benchmarking studies 249 entrepreneurial learning teams 7, 274, 279–96 literature survey on 274–8 research on 251–6 see also individual countries Hirst, Damien 189–90, 191 Hisrich, R. 158, 159, 208, 228 Hitt, M.A. 86, 87, 211 Hofstede, G. 229 Honebein, P.C. 57 Honig, B. 178 Howard-Grenville, J. 301

317

Hulsink, W. 55 Hynes, B. 238 ‘Idéo’ concept 178 individualistic approach 96, 168, 229, 231 Inglehart, R. 86 innovation 25, 34–5, 49, 55, 86, 92, 98, 112, 123, 153, 175, 182, 203, 243 by artists/scientists 184, 185–7, 191 in the creative industries 25, 34–5 in education 289–90 importance of 196, 198, 201, 214, 215, 236 novelty generation 191 organizational, see corporate entrepreneurship institutional culture 6–8, 191, 209–312 in China 6, 209–24 gendered 155, 156–7 see also business dynamics; cultural issues institutions definition 6 organizational change 7, 210–13, 220, 278, 279–81, 286–7, 289–94, 297–8 see also corporate entrepreneurship intellectual property rights 32, 36, 112 International Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship 253 Interpersonal Relativity Index (IRI) 22 intrapreneurship 89, 103, 118, 178, 300, 303, 308; see also corporate entrepreneurship Iredale, N. 225 Ireland (Irish Republic) 6–7, 225–47 creative industries 29–42 cultural/social structure 26, 27–9, 30–31, 42, 226, 227–32 economic development 26–7, 32, 33, 225, 226, 227–8, 232–3, 242–3 entrepreneurship 225, 227–9 social 228, 242 foreign direct investment in 210, 211, 227, 232, 236, 243 government policy 232–7 higher education 36–7, 225–7, 230, 237–42 national identity 27–9, 31, 32, 34, 227 religious structure 228 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 232–3, 235 Ireland, R.D. 87 Italy 88 IT-Factory (Denmark) 46 Jacob, M. 238 Jamieson, I. 195 Jansen, E.J. 61 Jaouen, A. 167

318

Index

Japan 211 Jingwen Wang 128 job creation 86, 88, 215 joint ventures 210–11, 215, 242, 257, 262–3 Jones, C. 72, 73, 84 Joosten-Ten Brinke, D. 56 Jordan, D. 236, 238 Josten, M. 257 Jourdan, P. 96 Julien, P.A. 83

Liechtenstein 253 Limerick University 36–7 linguistic issues 25, 26–7, 123, 128–9 Long, G. 116 Lord of the Dance (stage show) 27, 31–6, 38, 39, 41 Low, L. 242 Luckman, T. 157 Lundström, A. 236 Luo, Y. 211, 212

Kailer, N. 250, 258 Kalleberg, A. 156 Katz, J.A. 64, 86, 157, 184 Kelley, D.J. 61, 62 Kickul, J. 87, 157 Kidney, E. 236 Kirby, D.A. 54, 56, 93, 104, 250, 259, 276 Klandt, H. 54, 56, 64 Knight, P. 57, 59, 60 knowledge-based competencies 57–8, 98 knowledge-based economies 30, 211, 236, 243 Germany as 253 research and development 216, 236, 237 tacit/explicit knowledge 220–21 knowledge/technology transfer 91, 210, 211–12, 213–15, 220–21, 278 Kogut, B. 210–11 Kolb, D.A. 72, 169, 178 Koons, Jeff 189–90 Kuratko, D.F. 87, 88, 95, 101, 102–3, 169, 225

McClelland, D.C. 184 McColgan, John 32, 41, 42 McDougall, P.P. 87, 209 McGrath, R.G. 87 McMullen, J. 14 Makela, M. 308 Man, T.W.Y. 61, 62 management 86, 87, 88, 89, 127, 168, 169, 170, 175–6, 229, 239, 258, 301 of change 209–10, 213–14 financial 191, 196 see also venture capital integrated 299 of projects 176–7 strategic 111 see also organizational change Mansfield, R.S. 195 Marchesnay, M. 167, 171, 174, 178, 182 Marion, S. 176 marketing/market penetration 32, 34, 35, 36, 42, 191 brand management 36, 41–2, 191 Marlow, S. 162 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 261 Matlay, H. 110 May, R.C. 212 mentors 242 educators as 82 entrepreneurs as 50, 51, 96 mergers and acquisitions 210–11 Mexico 212 Miles, M.P. 26, 87 Miles, R.E. 174 Minniti, M. 162, 178 minority groups 5–6, 87–8, 126, 153–206 artists/scientists 5, 183–93 ethnic minorities in France 5, 166–7, 172–82 social justice for 13–16, 18, 19–21 women, see gender issues; women entrepreneurs Mitchell, R.K. 55, 168, 229 Moon, Rob 281, 283

Landström, Hans 123 Lans, T. 61, 62 Latour, B. 183, 187, 189 learning process bottom-up 47, 49, 51–2 from experience 3, 84, 169, 178 experimental learning theory (ELT) 18, 21 from failure 3, 84, 167 hic et nunc framework 72–3, 77–9, 83, 84 reverse transfer 210 situated 46–7, 48, 49 top-down 47–51, 52 see also entrepreneurial education Lee, J. 26 Leger-Jarniou, C. 88, 103 Leicht, K. 156 Leipzig University 249 Lemass, Seán 26 Leslie, G. 274 Levy-Tadjine, T. 166 Libecap, G.D. 110, 250

Index Morris, M.H. 88 multi-national enterprises (MNEs) 210, 211; see also small and medium enterprises nascent theory-based research 303, 304, 306 National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) (UK) 292–3 national identity 27–9, 31, 32, 34, 35, 42, 227 Nelson, T. 155, 157 networking 55, 61, 62, 63, 91, 127–8, 197, 201, 202, 249, 250, 254, 256, 260, 262, 264 internal 299 support networks for ethnic minorities 166–9, 178 New Zealand 113 niche construction concept 74 NIRAS Consultants 43 Nokia 191 North, D. 6 Ó Cinnéide, B. 39, 228 O’Gorman, C. 229, 232, 236–7, 238 O’Leary, E. 236, 238 Olding-Smee, F.J. 74 organizational change 7, 209–13, 220, 278, 279–81, 286–7, 289–94, 297 routines, changes 214, 297–8, 301–2, 303, 309–10 see also management original equipment manufacturing (OEM) 219 Oviatt, B.M. 87, 209 Padavic, I. 155 Page, Larry 128 Peng, M. 211, 212 Peters, M. 203 Pianka, E. 71; see also Community Similarity Index Pinkwart, A. 255 Pittaway, L. 250 Poland 88 Politis, D. 169 Porrazzo, Kimberly 158 Porter, M.E. 28 Prins, F. 59 problem-solving, see decision-making project management 176–7 publishing 187, 188, 189 Rae, David 57, 280–81, 283, 284, 290 Rauch, A. 65 reasoning process 44 reflective practices 72–3, 74, 77–9, 83, 153 reverse learning 210; see also knowledge/ technology transfer

319

Rice, G.H. 87 Richardson, I. 238 risk-taking 61–2, 65, 87, 196 by artists/scientists 188–9 investment risk 211 Riverdance (stage show) 27, 31–6, 37–9, 41–2 Roberts, George 127–8 Robinson, A. 116 role models educators as 80, 82 entrepreneurs as 45–6, 48, 50 Romanelli, E. 210 Rosenthal, S.B. 95 RTÉ (Radió Telefis Éireann) 31, 34, 39 Russia 212 Sachs, W.M. 95 Sadler-Smith, E. 61, 62 Sall, John 127–8 Sammut, S. 167 Sandberg, J. 64 Saporta, B. 168, 169, 170 Sarasvathy, S.D. 44, 184, 186, 191 Say, Jean-Baptiste 88, 92–3 Schmitt, C. 176, 178 Schon, D. 72 Schumpeter, J.A. 86, 122–3, 185, 189–90, 196 scientists, see artists/scientists Second Life (Internet-based virtual world) 97 Segers, M. 57 self-efficacy 63–4 Shane, S. 51, 56, 184, 202, 210 Shanghai Jiao Tong University 216, 217, 219 Shapero, A. 171, 174 Sharma, P. 298 Shaw, L. 15 Shepherd, D.A. 14, 87, 96, 167, 170 Shirts, G. 17 Shook, C.L. 169, 178 Siamsa Tire (Ireland) 29 Simon, Herbert A. 44, 186, 191 simulation(s) 2, 13, 16–21 benefits of 21–2 pre/post data 22–3 Star-Power 14, 16–21 Singh, H. 210–11 Slaughter, S. 274 Sluijsmans, D. 59 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 88, 93, 99, 157 in China 6, 215–16, 218–19 in Ecuador 197–204 in Europe 248 in France 170, 174, 175, 178, 182 in Ireland 232–3, 235

320

Index

in UK 112, 115, 116, 118, 119 see also multinational enterprises Snow, C.C. 174 social constructionist analysis 5, 155, 156–7, 158, 160–61, 162, 171 social entrepreneurship 2, 13–24, 88, 90, 111, 153, 228, 242 cost–benefit analysis of 15 decision making process in 14–16 definition 13–14 as feasible/desirable 14–15, 21 research on 14, 21–3 social justice, for minority groups 13–16, 18, 19–21 social structure 19, 173, 174, 188–9 Sokol, L. 174 Solomon, G.T. 110 Songnian Zhou 128 South Korea 212 Spencer, L.M. 194 Spencer, S.M. 194 Spillane, M. 232 stakeholders 4, 87, 110–21 definition 111, 112 external/internal 114, 115–17 literature survey on 111–13 primary/secondary/tertiary 112, 116–17, 119–20 research on 113–20 students as 112, 114–18, 119 teaching staff as 112, 114–18, 119 Star-Power simulation 14, 16–21 Stevenson, H. 99 Stevenson, L. 236 Stiggins, R. 64 Stoof, A. 194 strategic entrepreneurship 87 Strauss, A. 302 Stuart, R. 250 Student Business Plan Competition (China) 216 student diversity 3–4, 71–85, 92, 96, 97, 100–101, 104, 249, 255–6, 259–61 coaction theory and 71, 72, 79–83 identification/nature of 71–3, 74–7 modification of habits/thoughts 73–4, 83–4 ‘reasonable adventurer’ attributes 73 work experience 254–5 student reflection 72–3, 74, 77–9, 83, 153 Student Similarity Index 75–8 students, as stakeholders 112, 117–18, 119 Sturm, S. 155, 156 Surlemont, Bernard 122, 168, 178, 184 Sweeney, P. 232 Switzerland 249

tacit knowledge 220 Tanton, M. 250 Taras, M. 57 teamwork 302–3, 306–9, 310 Teinturier, B. 88 Thailand 212 Thornberry, N.E. 300 Torrès, O. 88, 122 Toulouse, J.-M. 170, 176 transaction costs 210 transition economies, see emerging economies Travers, J. 242 Turcan, R. 308 Tushman, N.L. 210 Tyler, R.W. 72, 73, 74, 77 Ucbasaran, D. 55 unemployment, see employment United Kingdom (UK) 124, 125, 126–9, 231 business schools 112 entrepreneurship education, stakeholders in 4, 110–21 government policy 115–16, 118, 119, 120, 277–8, 279, 292–3 higher education 110, 111–12, 120, 123, 125, 126–9, 276 see also Derby University minority groups 126 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 112, 115, 116, 118, 119 United States (US) 1, 113, 123–5, 126–9 business schools 258, 263 company creation 88, 91 entrepreneurs in 132–8 higher education 123, 124–5, 126–9, 276 minority groups 126 universities, see higher education; individual institutions Upton, N. 88 Valéau, P. 167 Van Andel, Jay 128 Vekselberg, Victor 128 Veltz, P. 92, 96 Venkataraman, S. 51, 56, 202 venture capital/business angels 91, 93, 94, 98, 100, 102, 104, 154, 216, 231, 239 foreign direct investment 210, 211, 219, 227, 232, 236, 243 government funding 249 investment risk 211 stakeholder investment 111 Verstraete, T. 167, 168, 169, 170, 178 Verzat, Caroline 129

Index wealth creation 41, 55, 86, 111, 124, 126, 127 Webb, J.W. 87 Welsch, H.P. 88 Welter, F. 261 Wesselink, R. 58 Whelan, G. 229 Whitehead, Alfred 72, 73, 82–3 Wiklund, J. 229 Wiliam, D. 59 Wittgenstein, L. 186 Wolf, M. 29 women entrepreneurs 5, 87–8, 153–65, 178, 229, 256, 257, 260 literature survey on 157–60, 164 male entrepreneurs compared to 154–9, 162, 222

research on 154–6, 159–61 social constructionist analysis of 5, 155, 156–7, 158, 160–61 see also gender issues Woolgar, S. 183, 187, 189 Wyatt, D. 244 Xin, K. 297, 308 Yeats, W.B. 31 Yin, R.K. 87 Young, Arthur 28 Zacharakis, A. 87 Zahra, S.A. 86, 87 Zeithaml, C.P. 87 Zhao, H. 55

321

Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 3

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research

Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship Education

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory of Research: Volume 24 (Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research)

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education

Handbook of Research on Techno-entrepreneurship

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Disciplinary Perspectives

Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy

Education In Heart, Volume 3

Entrepreneurship Research (Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship)

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship (Elgar Original Reference)

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship (Elgar Original Reference)

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume XIX

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education 2-volume set (Springer International Handbooks of Education)

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume XVII

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 23

Handbook of Econometrics, Volume 3

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 26

Your Education Research Project Handbook

Entrepreneurship and higher education

Handbook of Research on Catholic Education

Handbook of Research on Social Studies Education

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Disciplinary Perspectives (International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship)

International Relations, Volume 3 (International Perspectives on Higher Education Research)

Research in education

Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 3

Advances in Cancer Research, Volume 3

Research Methods in Education

An International Handbook of Tourism Education (Advances in Tourism Research)

Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Local Development: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research

Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 3

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research

Handbook of University-wide Entrepreneurship Education

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory of Research: Volume 24 (Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research)

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education

Handbook of Research on Techno-entrepreneurship

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Disciplinary Perspectives

Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy

Education In Heart, Volume 3

Entrepreneurship Research (Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship)

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship (Elgar Original Reference)

Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship (Elgar Original Reference)

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume XIX

International Handbook of Research in Arts Education 2-volume set (Springer International Handbooks of Education)

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume XVII

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 23

Handbook of Econometrics, Volume 3

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 26

Your Education Research Project Handbook

Entrepreneurship and higher education

Handbook of Research on Catholic Education

Handbook of Research on Social Studies Education

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Disciplinary Perspectives (International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship)

International Relations, Volume 3 (International Perspectives on Higher Education Research)

Research in education

Advances in Ecological Research, Volume 3

Advances in Cancer Research, Volume 3

Research Methods in Education

An International Handbook of Tourism Education (Advances in Tourism Research)

Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Local Development: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research

Recommend Documents