Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support [1st ed. 2020] 3030351904, 9783030351908

Citation preview

Robert James Crammond

Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support

Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities

Robert James Crammond

Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support

Robert James Crammond School of Business and Enterprise University of the West of Scotland South Lanarkshire, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-35190-8    ISBN 978-3-030-35191-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Special recognition must go to my late mother, Elizabeth. An everlasting inspiration in both my work and my life.

Preface

Throughout my time as a student, which was not that long ago, I did not envisage that years later I would have completed a PhD in entrepreneurship education and would be producing this book. Originally from an accounting and finance background, I assumed my future would lie in accounting practice, or industry. Yet, it was during a thought-provoking postgraduate class in creativity and innovation processes, in the spring of 2012, that I decided upon researching business management and enterprising activity of businesses, big and small, within Glasgow and the West of Scotland. This experience then developed into a research topic and years of formative, doctoral study at the University of the West of Scotland. During this period of my life, I was able to assist in the university’s business school teaching, and so my journey towards full-time academia began. During the past four years, I have taught hundreds of students: students from many backgrounds, with different experiences and with interesting stories to tell. The courses that I have developed and delivered have ranged from business management to human resources, and strategy. However, it was, and always has been since, entrepreneurship and enterprise classes which excite me the most. The courses and programmes, which are rooted in this discipline, disrupt the educational environment and allow for students to pursue and realise their own ambitions. They allow for students to also take enterprising and business ideas through a vii

viii Preface

distinct journey. This can be considerably different than with other, taught business fields. As part of the modules and degree programme that I lead or co-lead, I am inspired by the many students who propose and present their own ideas and plans for their futures. Being involved in entrepreneurship education truly is a motivating and rewarding experience. During relevant discussion, as a result of my own academic path and many research interests up to now, I tend to gather my thoughts concerning entrepreneurship education with respect to the wider institutional effect. The advancement of entrepreneurship education, which is both powerful and instrumental, relies on distinct, institutional patronage. However, this effect of course primarily involves acknowledging the notable people who are impacted. As anticipated, the student and educator relationship (referred to in this book as the enterprising journey) is well documented. In addition to this, considered are the individuals and groups who enhance, and inevitably disrupt, the existing educational environment. With this in mind, an institution must adequately reflect on their own perceptions, beliefs, and priorities of a number of things related to entrepreneurship education. These can be encapsulated by the following general questions which are addressed at various stages within this book: What does enterprise and entrepreneurship mean to you? What does it mean to be both a modern and entrepreneurial university? What activities does your university consistently engage in, as a centre of teaching and research excellence, which reinforce this enterprising behaviour? Do you have the ability to improve the current situation? If so, what can encourage this improvement? However, what internal or external factors can prevent this? However, before answering these questions, it is first worthwhile for institutions to recognise the definitional and conceptual distinction between what is considered enterprise education and what is considered entrepreneurship education. This, in my opinion, can assert the university’s visible agenda and empower the voiced rhetoric. Also, it aids a

 Preface 

ix

s­tudent’s understanding of entrepreneurship and its relevant skill building, and, moreover, alerts them to the fact of their potential capability, based on effort, self-belief, and ambition. Researchers have constructively found common ground as to this distinction, to the benefit of the university and namely programme leaders and supportive staff within the institution. As discussed in more detail in this book, when we consider enterprise education, we highlight enterprising skill sets, which broaden understandings and encourage enterprising behaviour. This can be of relevance to students embarking on careers across all sectors and industries. This focus on the development of a student’s personal, interpersonal, and professional goals, through adopting an enterprising narrative, promotes inclusivity in fulfilling the aforementioned agenda. Then again, entrepreneurship education concerns establishing, supporting, and developing new ventures which enter into the marketplace. This endeavour follows the realisation of a reasoned profit, legal, corporate, and socially responsible motive. Of course, programmes and initiatives from universities which facilitate this must allude to surrounding factors, outwith any resultant entity which can affect it. These broad, macroeconomic factors range from immediate to international competition, political intervention, environmental and sustainability issues, and economic fluctuations. Discussions which appreciate both the anthropological and sociological relevancy of entrepreneurship should also be introduced. In short, entrepreneurialism changes societies, and universities can be foremost in a venture’s outcome, positively and negatively. Although this book’s title states Entrepreneurship Education, it appreciates the priorities, rationale, and approaches of both enterprise and entrepreneurship education as credible pathways which represent many aims of educators, that empowers graduates, and equips potential, nascent entrepreneurs. Many students walk blindly into these types of courses. They are also impressionable to the impact of degree programmes and advice given by university academics and career development staff during their educational journey. The evolved institution and its entrepreneurial educators are ambassadors who should underline the importance of autonomy, creativity, and initiative.

x Preface

Across a few chapters, this book considers the evolved structures within universities that aim to accommodate entrepreneurship education. In addition to this, the decisions and directions taken by those bearing responsibility. These decisions and directions are predominantly instigated by national, international, and global events. These events and their consequential challenges are, of course, pervasive and disruptive to higher education. A university, in moving entrepreneurship education forward within its institution, should centrally consider what I regard as the four main aspects of higher educational programme and institutional development. These four aspects are capacity, capability, mobility, and durability. Firstly, capacity. Does the institution have the requisite resources to advance the relevant courses, or create new additions? Secondly, capability. Given this resource, is the current workforce adequately skilled and experienced to convey the entrepreneurial message and therefore educate? These two, institutionally internal questions impact the latter two aspects of mobility and durability. In terms of institutional mobility, to what extent does the institution engage with its immediate and international communities? Finally, how reactive, and proactive, is the university in adapting to and dealing with its many challenges? This book, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support, was inspired from my three-and-a-half-year PhD journey and embraces the notions and questions mentioned earlier. This book is the product of a two-year-long project. I aimed to produce something that can interest a wider audience and benefit the changing landscape that is entrepreneurship education within universities today. This book addresses and advances core themes and topics relevant to the modern university and educator, in both promoting entrepreneurship and encouraging students towards meeting their own goals. Within its seven chapters, this book informs the reader of progressions of entrepreneurship, how it is currently being taught within universities, the importance of the university stakeholder, and noting practical, cultural, political, and international considerations for the future. Seismic changes in recent times, both politically and economically, have already affected, and will no doubt further affect, the relationship

 Preface 

xi

between universities within countries. Concerning entrepreneurship education, this will be no different. In response to this, a unified yet flexible approach should be sought. This book illustrates numerous concepts, and outlines practical routes, for this to be achieved. A flow diagram of how the reader can navigate through the themes and topics within this book is provided in Chap. 1. My academic journey so far, including teaching entrepreneurship, researching entrepreneurship education and the stakeholder within higher education, and in writing this book, has been an exciting and thoroughly fulfilling time. During which, I have been able to meet interesting and truly wonderful people from around the world. Many of whom I now consider to be dear friends. I wish here to thank a number of these people who inspired me in completing this publication. With this book, I am truly motivated in promoting and progressing inclusive entrepreneurship education through a positive rethinking of enterprise and through developing innovative practices within higher education. I am immensely proud and honoured to be able to share my thoughts and ideas with you. I hope you enjoy reading the book as much as I did writing it! South Lanarkshire, UK

Robert James Crammond

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge several people who have been an immense support towards the completion of this, my first academic book. Firstly, I would like to thank my teaching and research supervisors past and present. They are Professor Robert Smith, Professor Heather Tarbert, Dr. Sandra Hill, Lorraine Quinn, Allan Burns, Dr. Anne Clare Gillon, and Dr. Daniel Turner. Our discussions about, and surrounding ­entrepreneurship education, have been motivating in both my teaching and research activities since 2013. Their vast experience and expertise continue to provide deep insight, which has occasionally generated interesting conversation and debate. I also wish to thank the many colleagues from the University of the West of Scotland’s School of Business and Creative Industries, past and present. I have been extremely fortunate to work alongside such motivating professionals on a variety of taught modules and research projects over the years. I believe this continuing experience has positively contributed to me having a better-rounded outlook on academia, industry, and society. I must also acknowledge the late academic, Jim Rankin. An initial inspiration during my undergraduate studies, and the supervisor of my first dissertation back in 2011, he was an incredibly positive influence who encouraged me to consider undertaking the research degree that I have since completed. xiii

xiv Acknowledgements

Additionally, in the spirit of realising and emboldening workable, enterprising teams, which is of course reflected upon within the chapters of this book, I appreciate and thank a few individuals who, in my opinion, have brought this concept to life. In reinforcing this ecosystem agenda, and supporting a student’s entrepreneurial and general career ambitions, the wisdom and experience of Dr. Kingsley Omeihe, Alan Murray, Theo Tzanidis, Dr. Matthew Frew, Kirstin Ledger, Peter McGuire, and Professor Veronica Scuotto have influenced my educator and research path. The journey has always been, and should continue to be, great fun! Furthermore, I am extremely fortunate to have such great friends in Katie McQuade, Dr. Catherine Clark, Gary Gillon, Dr. Muzammal Khan, the bold Dr. Scott Kennedy, Steven Quinn, and Denise Speirs whom I have met along the way. Of course, I am enormously grateful for the encouragement and belief of my family. My sisters Elizabeth and Jennifer, my father David, and my uncle Murdoch have all been patient and reassuring. Their support has contributed to me excelling in my career in higher education. Without such support, this book would not have been possible. It shall never be forgotten. Finally, my dear wife Karen… Over the past ten years, she has been a caring and enduring strength. She has helped me cope through trying times. With her at my side, I have simply been able to enjoy life.

Contents

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities  1 2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 23 3 Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts and Progress 57 4 Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 93 5 The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder Within Universities123 6 Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces155 7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward for Teaching and Support187 Appendix203

xv

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Chapter and question summary 13 Fig. 2.1 Evolved entrepreneurial understandings: individuals and ­institutions44 Fig. 3.1 Conceptualising entrepreneurialism: the educational context80 Fig. 4.1 The entrepreneurship ecosystem concept: an illustration113 Fig. 5.1 The educational stakeholder inclusivity model: processes for enterprise143 Fig. 6.1 Entrepreneurship education futures: cultural considerations174

xvii

List of Boxes

Fact Box 1 Fact Box 2 Fact Box 3 Fact Box 4 Fact Box 5 Fact Box 6 Fact Box 7 Fact Box 8 Fact Box 9 Fact Box 10

25 27 60 69 100 101 126 137 169 173

xix

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities

Our determination exists within; yet emerges with opportunity Robert James Crammond

1.1 Introduction The changing nature of education from traditional to more progressive and contemporary schools of thought, as expressed by theorists and current researchers and educators, has allowed the majority of universities to embrace and advance entrepreneurship education. This undoubtedly will influence and impact levels of entrepreneurial activity and resultant start-­ ups. The Entrepreneurial University that materialises can appear in many guises, as per discipline, activity, or research ambition. This notion, along with the proliferation of many different types of entrepreneurship education programmes and entrepreneurial activity, affects the institutional structures of higher education institutions (HEIs), and the responsibilities and modes of engagement from related stakeholders. Expected therefore are improved levels of entrepreneurship education delivery and

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_1

1

2 

R. J. Crammond

effective support. With related impact and legacy studies of entrepreneurship ­education consistently conducted, investigations that question the identity of internal stakeholders, their activities, and understanding their perspectives are appearing, but are not extensively witnessed. This book, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support, acknowledges purposive and dynamic roles, relationships, and perspectives of delivery and support to stakeholders within higher education. This includes witnessing the many patterns of delivery and supportive behaviour through institutional screening, realisation of resources, and engagement with individuals and groups. Whether it be socially, economically, or organisationally, entrepreneurship education strives to improve the fortunes of local, national, and international regions by utilising a variety of engaging, experiential, enterprise-based, skill-building activities within transformative educational settings (Hytti and O’Gorman 2004; Burns 2011, 2017; Jones 2011, 2013). This increasingly involves the participation of those who, regardless of academic background or calibre, have been exposed to entrepreneurship and business activity. Support from local and national government is voiced, as HEI-surrounding groups (chiefly edited by academics, partnered research universities and colleges, and industry leaders) continue to publish guidelines, evidence, and future plans concerning progressive entrepreneurship education at university level (Volkmann et  al. 2009; Williamson et al. 2013; EC 2013, 2015). Additionally, in some instances, close collaboration and relationship building with industry is witnessed through studied modules or programmes, and by initiating in-house employability and business enterprise services. Organisations and industries, as a whole, can source new talent, skills, and ideas from local or national universities (Matlay 2010; Gibb and Haskins 2014; EC 2015). As a result, the expected audience of this book is wide-ranging, and this book informs multiple stakeholder groups of their potential involvement in future entrepreneurship education curriculum and initiatives. The acknowledgement of multiple university stakeholders concerning this delivery and support further highlights the many narratives that must be addressed.

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

3

1.2 Advancing the Entrepreneurship Educational Context Entrepreneurship education studies have encountered, investigated, and commented on a number of issues of importance for universities, higher education teaching, and student support. However, a fragmented, entrepreneurial experience amongst academics and students is dependent on the forms of programmes available. This in itself contributes to distinctly dissimilar course structures, forms of assessments, and resultant entrepreneurial learning experiences. Optimistically, students are reacting to and endorsing practical elements of entrepreneurship education. Although differences are evident, productive steps are considered for a unified approach to entrepreneurship education within universities. Consistent research has indicated the notable influence of particular stakeholders that continue to shape the educational offering from higher education (Fayolle 2005; Fayolle et al. 2006; Dew and Sarasvathy 2007; Gibb and Haskins 2014). An institution’s heightened awareness of their human, and intellectual, capital improves their ability to facilitate pragmatic and socially responsive programmes, activities, and support structures. Simply and succinctly: people mobilise entrepreneurial ideas. Additionally, institutions champion this related, entrepreneurial activity. Influential individuals and institutions set out, through entrepreneurship education programmes, to reshape and redefine the educational stakeholder towards stipulated actions and responsibilities. This is in response to changing industrial and educational environments. This book documents internal stakeholders who are currently establishing, promoting, and maintaining entrepreneurship education. Related research and activity has markedly grown since the 1980s, with increasingly more institutions developing, delivering, and maintaining their own entrepreneurship education programmes (Katz 2003; Fayolle 2007, 2010). This has led to various methods of teaching and assessment being embedded from many educational stances on the subject (Hynes 1996; Matlay 2010, 2012; EC 2008; Blenker et al. 2012). The introduction of entrepreneurship education is crucial concerning a student’s career aspirations, as it enables them to become more entrepreneurial, realising

4 

R. J. Crammond

c­ reative skills and developing innovative intentions (Matlay and Carey 2007; Hamidi et al. 2008; Matlay 2011). Therefore, it is important that continued research in the field is conducted as practitioners adopt more efficient and notably effective means of entrepreneurship education delivery and support. Literature, past and present, highlights recurring themes that underpin a need for on-going research. Furthermore, surrounding issues have been noted that have stimulated deeper discussion and promoted critical reflection and further study within business and university contexts (Kuratko 2003). These themes and issues demonstrate the primitive nature of the topic, introduction of entrepreneurship education, with respect to some institutions, and the opportunity for greater identification and understanding of contributory factors. Since the latter part of the twentieth century, research has confirmed the distinct value of entrepreneurship education and the responsibility of appropriate facilitators of the subject in maintaining economies, locally and nationally (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Burns 2011, 2017). A shift from the traditional higher educational paradigm in recent decades, entrepreneurship education vitally contributes to economic growth (Audretsch 2006; North et al. 2010; Matlay 2008, 2011), becoming a central business discipline which enriches lives and economies (Matlay and Carey 2007; Slavtchev et al. 2012). Those in receipt of this form of education are able to realise their potential and gain the necessary skillsets possible to increase entrepreneurial intention. Katz (2003), Pittaway and Cope (2007), and Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) note this progression of entrepreneurship education as a taught discipline, which has increasingly been witnessed at all levels of education (Nielsen et al. 2017). Entrepreneurialism, and harnessing the ability to instigate entrepreneurial mind-sets, innovative new ventures, and prospective enterprises of all sizes is a vital aspect in promoting business growth and prosperity. In an environment, that is post-recession, conflicts of interest between certain factions of organisations, industries, and communities are seen and, as mentioned, a perceived lack of governmental help can be evident. A universal ambition of relevant stakeholders, within this form of education, is to achieve shared goals between teaching staff, supportive workers, and senior university management (Matlay 2008, 2011). These goals

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

5

can positively influence students into producing entrepreneurial ­outcomes. It is an overwhelming responsibility of higher education staff and management to ascertain what is actually specified within their entrepreneurship education roles, and what is deemed important during the facilitation and review stages of given entrepreneurship education programmes and surrounding entrepreneurial activities (Anderson and Jack 2008; Beresford and Beresford 2010). Aspiring entrepreneurs and recent graduate entrepreneurs at undergraduate, post-graduate, and research level may experience and, on occasion, negatively regard the current job market. Much discussed brain drains are highlighted annually, with many disheartened graduates in positions that they are over-skilled for. This problem can be rectified with implemented educational programmes that have a distinct focus on the needs of stakeholders and businesspeople, as well as maintaining and unearthing new entrepreneurial talent (Gimmon 2014). In an attempt to highlight the need for more precise entrepreneurship education in the country, the issues of unemployment and improving the quality of training and recruitment can be successfully addressed with publications such as this book. A distinct revision of entrepreneurship education can alleviate the issue of costs and enable both financial and resource efficiency to be witnessed from governmental help and/or initiatives. This book recognises the delivery and support landscape within universities. This in turn enables greater entrepreneurship education implementation within higher education institutions, who promote entrepreneurship education and the on-going entrepreneurial agenda, towards economic stability and local, regional, and national growth. Additionally, this book reveals key individuals involved in delivery and support, capable of increasing entrepreneurial intention and unlocking regional competences and capabilities. This book outlines and proposes models and measures that will improve entrepreneurship education and related stakeholder involvement and engagement; maintaining the adequate resources required to promote and improve student-originated entrepreneurialism. This enforces and coincides with the needs and views of centrally relevant stakeholders and the development of learning and employment that ultimately endorses creativity and innovation.

6 

R. J. Crammond

1.3 A  bout This Book: Teaching Concepts and Practices Many textbooks in recent years have helped bring entrepreneurship theory and research, and both enterprising and entrepreneurship education, to the classroom. These include texts which focus on teaching entrepreneurship, historical to contemporary appreciations of enterprise, small business management theory and practices, and the development of entrepreneurial activity within the higher education context. This book aims to provide greater clarity of entrepreneurship education within universities, appreciating the many roles and responsibilities of delivery (teaching) and support (advice and enterprise incubatory services) stakeholders who positively influence students during their learning and entrepreneurial journeys. The book provides discussion and evidence from the classroom environment, along with practical and tested worksheet material. These worksheets aid the development of enterprise programmes and enrich enterprise support within the educational environment, for students and enterprising groups. The chapters introduce key and related areas to enterprise, bridging refined philosophical arguments between economic theory, enterprise, and learning with beneficial, practical activities. A dual approach for the multi-stakeholder, students shall benefit from the theoretical and introductory content of this publication, with academics benefitting from its practical, companion style nature. As discussed, many research studies have concentrated on the output of entrepreneurship education, including teaching, learning, support, university eco-systems and environments, related stakeholders, legacy building, and national and international government policy. Each chapter of Advancing Entrepreneurship Education within Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support includes original concepts (with illustrations), which aim to support pedagogical and practical development of enterprising education. The many central and surrounding issues that this book encounters are understanding enterprise and entrepreneurship itself, the teaching of enterprise and entrepreneurship, supporting entrepreneurialism, the level of stakeholder

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

7

involvement within enterprise-related roles, championing enterprising behaviour, and the evolved university. A number of unique features within this book aid both the reader and the advancing of entrepreneurship education itself. These features acknowledge understandings of the field, assist in illustrating related concepts, and highlight the many ways in which it can be taught practically and productively. These features are as follows:

1.3.1 Seminal Concepts, Highlighting Relevant and Expected practices Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, inclusive, within this book, close with a conceptual appreciation of the themes discussed therein. These aim to highlight both the progression of theory and the myriad of implications for learning and teaching of entrepreneurship education in practice. These expected practices are also partly addressed with the book’s seven appendices, for the benefit of the entrepreneurship educator and entrepreneurial university. The illustrated concepts and process models focus on evolved entrepreneurial understandings which impact individuals and institutions; entrepreneurialism within the educational context; appreciating elements that form the strengthening, entrepreneurship eco-system concept; the educational stakeholder and the power of inclusivity; and the development of the appropriate culture necessary for the future of entrepreneurship education within enterprising universities.

1.3.2 Four Overarching Questions Addressed Across the Following Six Chapters The four questions are devised by the author to address the many issues faced by educators, and universities in general, when designing, delivering, assessing, and maintaining enterprising or entrepreneurship education. These questions are listed later in the chapter and are thematically mapped against the subsequent chapters of this book. Closing comments, with regards to these questions, are also expressed within the final chapter.

8 

R. J. Crammond

1.3.3 Five Illustrative Mini Case Studies from the Classroom Environment True, engaging, and valuable education is an enlightening, emotive, challenging, and rewarding journey. It can change lives forever. The five reflective mini case studies included within this book document just a few of the many memorable and significant experiences that I have had from the classroom, when designing, developing, and delivering entrepreneurship education-relevant modules. These experiences include recounting central aspects such as student engagement, the teaching dynamic, the enterprise agenda, the key stakeholder, and enriching the classroom environment.

1.3.4 Fact Boxes Fact boxes are simply that boxes containing facts! These include statistical to national information related to entrepreneurship education, higher education, industry, and society. Additionally, these boxes also display stated assertions and viewpoints from various scholars, philosophes, and notable individuals today.

1.3.5 A Practical Appendix, Including Worksheets for Educators and the Enterprising Classroom These practical appendices (A–G) are established to assist classroom activities, towards both formative and/or summative forms of entrepreneurship education assessment. Also, they guide future activities and operations undertaken by academic schools, faculties, or across the university. These worksheet appendices are also aligned with the seminal concepts briefly mentioned above. The appendix is discussed in Sect. 1.4 of this chapter. This first chapter outlines the purpose and motivation of this book. As entrepreneurship is of interest to, and can affect everyone in society, the wider readership of this book must be acknowledged. The central themes and topics are highlighted, along with indicating how this book shall address them. A summary of the supportive worksheets is also detailed.

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

9

Chapter 2 discusses the origins and concepts of entrepreneurship through time. The related economic, philosophical, political, and sociological considerations of entrepreneurship, predominantly through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, are considered. Drawing on these seminal understandings, this chapter progresses notions of entrepreneurship towards its impact on modern business and society today. Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature concludes by discussing many examples of entrepreneurship in practice, and how this benefits business and education as we move into the twenty-first century. The third chapter underlines the importance of entrepreneurship education for higher education institutions. The ever-increasing requirement for students to attain the relevant, enterprising skills and creative mind-­ sets has justified the argument and need for purposive and relevant entrepreneurship education. Chapter 3 discusses the progression of entrepreneurship education in many countries and its development within universities today. Aspects of both delivery and assessment, along with building valuable legacies, are encountered as the varied and vibrant environments are apparent from the now many entrepreneurship courses and certificated programmes. The what?, how? and when? questions surrounding the teaching of entrepreneurship, as encountered in recent research, are also addressed. Practical worksheets are also referred to in assisting educators, learning support professionals, and students alike. Chapter 4 highlights a critical aspect towards student, graduate entrepreneur, and university success, concerning entrepreneurship education: the development of entrepreneurial universities and their links with industry. In this chapter, the many benefits of these industrial links, nationally and internationally, are detailed. Also, the concept of the desired entrepreneurial eco-system is also visited. Small businesses, multinationals, and governments all provide necessary support and expertise in enriching universities. This chapter focuses on how these relationships, through practice and publication, have aided in the formulation and development of creative, innovative, and ultimately enterprising higher education institutions. Through examples, this development strengthens entrepreneurial networks, encourages entrepreneurial mind-sets and behaviours, and promotes entrepreneurial activity. The fifth chapter brings into focus the need for universities to recognise, analyse, and engage with the organisational stakeholder. Appreciating

10 

R. J. Crammond

stakeholder theory, and analysis, informs business operations and can lead to heightened levels of economic success. In this chapter, an appreciation of contemporary stakeholder theory within the educational environment, focusing on the progression of entrepreneurship education practice, is displayed. The key individuals within education: educators, support staff, and students, all determine the fortunes of educational journeys and potential, enterprising activity. These stakeholders embody particular roles and responsibilities centred on enterprise, which influence and impact upon behaviours, attitudes, and ultimately entrepreneurial intentions. This chapter discusses and defines the many personalities or archetypes within higher education and how they shape the modern university. The penultimate Chap. 6 notes the emergence of innovative and pragmatic forms of education that have dramatically changed the educational environment in recent years. As for entrepreneurship education, these forms of delivery and assessment advance the unique enterprising journey between educators and students, and place the aspiring student within real-life scenarios, situations, and enterprising spaces. Digitised and mobilised forms of education liberate students and practically address central hopes and fears surrounding higher education. This includes student aspiration, employability, graduate destination, and support. This chapter conceptualises the modern university, as institutions increasingly rethink their goals, activities, and relationships with society and industry as a whole. In the final, seventh chapter, this book reflects on the main points from this publication, in assisting productive and progressive teaching and support for entrepreneurship education. Ways in which educators, learning supporters, and researchers can move forward in the teaching and developmental support of these courses and programmes are discussed. This includes assessing theoretical advancements such as ­rethinking for, and refreshing, the modern classroom; engaging with preferred practices; and reaffirming university and governmental policy, which strengthen ties between education, industry, and society in general. Products of entrepreneurship education, including the heightening of international and industry awareness, to responsive and community-­ centric education, are also appreciated as the taught field advances.

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

11

Entrepreneurship education is a product of the changing nature of universities, as teachers, researchers, and student support staff embrace the importance of enterprising skills and promoting entrepreneurial behaviour. This book presents the progression of enterprise and entrepreneurship education, displaying concepts of best practice and stakeholder identification, towards more adequate and sustainable teaching and student support. This book differs from current texts in the field, as it provides guidance to many individuals with a university structure (through conceptual modelling), as well as providing practical content for the classroom, benefitting students (progressed theory, definitions, topic appreciation, etc.). This book applies common understandings of the stakeholder (Arnstein 1969; Freeman 1984, 2004), primitive and developmental models of stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al. 1997; Page 2002), and general principles towards effective stakeholder management (e.g. Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics 1999), in establishing understandings, expected behaviours, and perspectives towards the progression of entrepreneurship education (see Fayolle 2005; Matlay 2008; Dew and Sarasvathy 2007; Gibb and Haskins 2014; Neck et al. 2014). Acknowledging principles of stakeholder identification, behaviour and engagement, as discussed by previous scholars, are occasionally conducted within the educational context. This is imperative in advancing prescriptive and effective entrepreneurship education. Clear understandings of traditional stakeholder theory highlight considered perspectives of human interaction within organisational constructs, which, in the case of this book, are applied and advanced to inform universitybased entrepreneurship education. A pragmatic and relatively primitive field of research and teaching activity, applying stakeholder theory and its principles to this context encourages investigation into who creates, facilitates, and advances entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship education programmes. Acknowledgement of this by whom question is also ­important to this book in progressing entrepreneurship education further. Therefore, this book aims to also review entrepreneurship education-­related stakeholders, concerning current entrepreneurship education teaching, research, and/or commercial activity within universities.

12 

R. J. Crammond

For the purposes of clarity, this book devises the following four questions that must be addressed in order to suitably advance entrepreneurship education within universities: Q1. In being relevant, productive, and valuable, what does entrepreneurship education really mean? Q2. What notable progressions, concerning entrepreneurship education, have already been witnessed? Q3. How can we, as educators, students, and supportive individuals, and groups, advance entrepreneurship education within the classroom environment? Q4. What does the future hold for the relationship between entrepreneurship education and universities? These questions are revisited throughout this book with an author’s response, as well as reflected upon in the final, conclusion chapter. The flow diagram below illustrates the path this book follows, along with indicating potential areas of primary concern for noted stakeholders (Fig. 1.1): Throughout this book, five mini case studies are included. These provide details of both anecdotal evidence and experiences from the classroom and the entrepreneurship education community. Where appropriate, questions are posed that should stimulate discussion and debate. The case study titles are as follows: • Case Study I: Debating Entrepreneurship: Born or Made? (Chap. 2) • Case Study II: Preparing for the Classroom Environment (Chap. 3) • Case Study III: Energising Entrepreneurship Education: Stories from the Classroom (Chap. 4) • Case Study IV: Key Enterprising Stakeholders: Unlocking the Door (Chap. 5) • Case Study V: The University and Brexit: Academic ­Discussions (Chap. 6) It is vitally important, for entrepreneurship education to be successful in the classroom, that a clear, complimentary, cohesive, and collaborative network is established within universities for the twenty-first century.

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

Fig. 1.1  Chapter and question summary

13

14 

R. J. Crammond

This is regularly an unclear and under-researched area in both theory and practice. Aligning, for example, theories of entrepreneurship education and the higher educational stakeholders, does not involve a set of rigid conventions and concepts restrictive to organisational constructs (Friedman and Miles 2006). In progressing entrepreneurship education, increased knowledge of distinct stakeholder relationships, including a conceptual appreciation of key individuals, explaining their perspectives and exploring their roles, are necessary. These areas above represent particular gaps within current entrepreneurship education research that this book explores. Documenting a novel approach to the entrepreneurship education and university context, this book attempts to reflect the transition to contemporary, immersive, and experiential education from traditional didactic methods of enterprise teaching, research, and wider knowledge transfer.

1.4 Supporting and Promoting Entrepreneurship Education: The Practical Appendix As highlighted already, in the spirit of this book, a practical approach must be taken in order for entrepreneurship education to be truly advanced within higher education. The seven appendices within this book draw upon recent developments and are designed to inform, encourage, and assist the key individuals within the university environment. Entrepreneurship educators, aspirational students, and supportive departments within university have all inspired the creation of these worksheets and templates, in building entrepreneurship education-­ related sessions or programmes, as a whole. The supplementary information aims to conceptualise, and realise through practical exercises, the current state of entrepreneurship education and how it can advance within higher education. The first of the seven entries, ‘Overview of Concepts and Practices: Models, Templates, and Worksheets’ (Appendix A), illustratively

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

15

summarises the conceptual and practical alignment, showcased within this book. A set of relevant questions, in advancing entrepreneurship education, are listed and reasoned, as institutions increasingly embrace creative and innovative education in action. Ambitiously, these questions strategically outline the key considerations for multi-stakeholders within university, towards more prescriptive and proactive forms of entrepreneurship education. The second appendix, ‘Approaching Entrepreneurship Education: Introductory Worksheet’ (Appendix B), aims to assist educators in addressing and outlining entrepreneurship within the classroom. An appreciation and initial understanding is required with any taught discipline, along with discussion of what it means. This focused discussion of entrepreneurialism allows the potential for interesting gaps and opportunities, within research, industry, and society itself, to be realised. Moving on, during a pre-delivery phase, ‘Applying Entrepreneurship Education: Delivery and Assessment’ (Appendix C) recognises the recent progressions of entrepreneurship education and considers the many routes for delivering and assessing the content. A decisional diagram outlines possible ways for educators to enrich the entrepreneurial pedagogy, as well as encouraging the positive intervention of secondary and tertiary stakeholders. The ideas and impact of these notable people, within and outside education promote entrepreneurship education. It is a core component towards its advancement. Therefore, a stakeholder perspective is visited with the fourth and fifth appendices of this book. In the first part, ‘Stakeholder Identification for Entrepreneurship Education: Who, what, where, when, and why?’ (Appendix D) addresses the recognition and salience of stakeholders, relevant to a given course or programme. Also, this is hugely central to the content and direction of the student’s contribution itself: What are their goals? Who is key in the achievement of these goals? A set of questions are posed, in considering the involvement of stakeholders, as the experiences of entrepreneurial people and the creative pedagogy align. The second part, ‘Building Stakeholder Relationships and Legacies: Champions of Entrepreneurship Education’ (Appendix E) takes this notion of stakeholder relevancy further, by asserting key responsibilities

16 

R. J. Crammond

and objectives of educators and supportive staff. This, through action planning, popularises the notion of entrepreneurship education champions, and underpins previously fragmented positions within education, into formalised roles. The penultimate appendix, ‘Encouraging Enterprising Learning Spaces: Session-planning Checklist’ (Appendix F), reviews the resources and capabilities of the twenty-first century classroom. It aims, through acknowledging various considerations, to question how effective and efficient learning spaces can be in boosting courses and programmes, and inspiring students towards building entrepreneurial legacies. The seventh and final appendix ‘Envisaging Future Roles for Entrepreneurship Education: Road-mapping Enterprising Behaviour’ (Appendix G) encapsulates the closing comments from the book, in asserting key positions of responsibility for advancing entrepreneurship education. Outlining short-, medium-, and longer-term goals, for the progression of entrepreneurship education within your university, can be set with the help of this appendix.

1.5 Benefits and Intended Audience This book can be of substantial benefit to many stakeholders. A wide range of influential education and business individuals are actively involved in, or in receipt of, entrepreneurship education and its resultant activities. The stakeholders involved interact from various levels of immediate significance: primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. The concepts outlined, and discussion points raised within this book, seek to benefit these multiple levels of stakeholders within and surrounding universities. These include: students, practitioners, universities, entrepreneurs, educational policy makers, and industry leaders. Within this expanding field of entrepreneurship education-specific stakeholder theory, conceptual, practical, and definitional advancements are ever-present considerations and realities. Concerning enterprising activity, and entrepreneurship as a whole, the following stakeholders can be categorised:

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

17

Primary stakeholders include academics, business owners, educators, entrepreneurs, graduates, universities, industry leaders, research groups, students, and university/student colleagues. Secondary stakeholders include councils, customers, employers, governments, local community organisations, non-governmental organisations, parents, policy makers: at the regional and national levels, politicians, professional bodies, related industries, and small and medium-sized enterprises. Tertiary stakeholders include accountants, banks and building societies, community leaders, competitors, contractors, environmentalists, financiers, pressure groups, retailers, social opinion, society, sponsors, suppliers, support companies, the media, and unions. Educators can use this book towards curriculum building and isolated workshops. Teachers, researchers, and university support or institutional, student engagement professionals can benefit from the contained worksheets provided within the appendix, in improving entrepreneurship education delivery. These worksheets can be adopted in isolation, or in chronological order, as individuals and student groups embrace enterprise, and engage in entrepreneurial behaviour. As discussed, this book includes updated, scholarly literature from the field, as well as from national and international bodies. Relevant facts, statistics, and perspectives are presented, which further highlight the strength and progression of entrepreneurship education within higher education. The conceptual models and practice-based illustrations evidence this progression, as new ideas and understandings shape the educational environment. This book allows the reader to improve their conceptual knowledge and contextual appreciation of related themes and topics concerning advancing entrepreneurship education, to therefore discuss key points raised, and pose relevant questions. The presented concepts and prescribed practices for the classroom should inspire and promote future entrepreneurship education. In practice, all of the chapters and associated materials within this book can positively contribute to modules and programmes related to developing enterprise and enterprising skills, small business management, entrepreneurship and venture creation, and notions of entrepreneurial leadership.

18 

R. J. Crammond

In essence, in taking entrepreneurship education forward, cohesion in purpose, and inclusivity in the strategic planning, and execution of method all strengthen the message or enterprise agenda desired from years of related documentation and recommendation. This book reinforces this message.

1.6 Conclusion The opening quote from this first chapter captures the essence of this book: seizing opportunities, responding to volatile or favourable situations, and displaying drive and determination. With entrepreneurship education comes many opportunities for all concerned within and outside the institution. Inherent traits and abilities, encouraging relevant actions, become viable, entrepreneurial possibilities. These possibilities can only be realised however, with the acceptance of these notions of skills-based enterprise and new venture-focussed entrepreneurship education and commercial practices. This introduction and maintenance of respective courses, when aligned with aspects of continuous and professional development and skills acquisition, further validates its inclusion in programme portfolios as it coincides with programme aims and wider, higher education objectives for students before and upon graduation. With hints of Schumpeterian ideals, but for the university context, students and the institution’s supportive framework have this opportunity to reflect business realities and move away from the potential rigidity of degree courses. Economic theory and past philosophes are discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Entrepreneurship education is powerful. It is life changing. Furthermore, it provides an educational environment, a platform, and a pathway resulting in improved drive, ambition, and purpose. Institutions now embrace entrepreneurship education more so than ever before, as modules and programmes develop in responding to student and business needs. Educators are engaging and collaborating on improving current, and introducing new, practices which enrich entrepreneurship education and promote entrepreneurial skill sets and enterprising mind-sets. Students are able to enjoy a real world, educational journey which is far

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

19

removed from traditional and didactic modes of learning. As entrepreneurship education has intensified within universities, professionals, groups, and departments across institutions have shared the responsibility of promoting and elevating the enterprise agenda. It is up to universities and impacting stakeholders alike, as ambassadors for societal change in our world, to facilitate this productive and positive form of education for the next generation of enterprising individuals. This chapter has provided a light introduction to themes and issues surrounding entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, and its advancement within universities. With this advancement continuously including greater links between education, industry, and social policy, a true enrichment of education which is centred on enterprising activity is beginning to flourish. This book provides a balance of conceptual and practical considerations, highlighting many of these themes and issues from the higher educational context. In Chap. 2, the origins of entrepreneurship, and the changing nature of business activity, are described. It details original understandings of entrepreneurship and its impact on business, society, and education. As with all chapters within this book, perspectives are visited in order to enlighten and improve the educational environment. Chapter-by-chapter concepts and practical worksheets illustrate this objective, which aims to support and advance entrepreneurship education within the classroom.

References Anderson, A. R. and Jack, S. L. (2008) ‘Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional artisan?’ Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 259–273. Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol.35(4), pp. 216–224. Audretsch, D.  B. (2006) Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Beresford, R. and Beresford, K. (2010) ‘The role of networks in supporting grassroots good practice in enterprise education’. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. Vol.15(3), pp. 275–288.

20 

R. J. Crammond

Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S.  H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., and Thrane, C. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(6), pp. 417–430. Brockhaus, R.  H., Hills, G.  E., Klandt, H. and Welsch, H.  P. (Eds.) (2001) Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Burns, P. (2017). New venture creation: A framework for entrepreneurial start-­ ups. Palgrave. Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics (1999) ‘Principles of stakeholder management’. Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics. Toronto: School of Management, University of Toronto. Dew, N. and Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007) ‘Innovations, stakeholders and entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol.74(3), pp. 267–283. European Commission (2008) Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies. Final Report of the Expert Group. Enterprise and Industry, March 2008. European Commission (2013) Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fayolle, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’ International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol.2(1), pp. 89–98. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2007) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: A general perspective. (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2010) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) ‘Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.30(9), pp. 701–720. Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R.  E. (2004) ‘The stakeholder approach revisited’. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik. Vol.5(3), p. 228. Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2006) Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1 Introduction: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education… 

21

Gibb, A.A. and Haskins, G. (2014) ‘The university of the future an entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organisation?’ Handbook on the Entrepreneurial University. Vol.25. Gimmon, E. (2014) ‘Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.56(8/9), pp. 814–825. Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K. and Berglund, H. (2008) ‘Creativity in entrepreneurship education’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 304–320. Hynes, B. (1996) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training-introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.20(8), pp. 10–17. Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004) ‘What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries’. Education and Training. Vol.46(1), pp. 11–23. Jones, C. (2011) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Jones, C. (2013) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(2), pp. 283–300. Kuratko, D. F. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century’. White Paper. US Association of Small Business Education. Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 382–396. Matlay, H. (2010) ‘Introduction: contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4). Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182. Matlay, H. (2012) ‘International perspectives on entrepreneurship education and learning, introduction to the special issue’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(3), pp. 159–162. Matlay, H. and Carey, C. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.14(2), pp. 252–263.

22 

R. J. Crammond

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.22(4), pp. 853–886. Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G. and Brush, C. G. (Eds.). (2014) Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Edward Elgar Publishing. Nielsen, S. L., Klyver, K., Evald, M. R. and Bager, T. (2017) Entrepreneurship in theory and practice: Paradoxes in Play. Edward Elgar Publishing. North, D., Baldock, R. and Ekanem, I. (2010) ‘Is there a debt finance gap relating to Scottish SMEs? A demand side perspective’. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance. Vol.12(3), pp. 173–192. Page, C.G. (2002) ‘The determination of organization stakeholder salience in public health’. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. Vol.8(5), pp. 76–84. Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurship Education A Systematic Review of the Evidence’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.25(5), pp. 479–510. Slavtchev, V., Laspita, S. and Patzelt, H. (2012) ‘Effects of entrepreneurship education at universities’. Jena Economic Research Papers. (No. 2012, 025). Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Marlotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009) Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative. Williamson, N., Beadle, S. and Charalambous, S. (2013) ‘Enterprise education impact in higher education and further education’. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Final report. London: DBIS.

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature

In conceding what we have yet to realise, we realise the value of what we already know. Robert James Crammond

2.1 Introduction The impact of entrepreneurship is felt through all walks of life. Entrepreneurial activity and the behaviours that lead to it, from entrepreneurs and innovative organisations, affects the economic and societal outcomes of industries and countries worldwide. This chapter outlines the nature of entrepreneurship, and what it is commonly viewed as by various definitions, in practice and in both past and present research undertaken in the field. Entrepreneurship, as a noted field of academic investigation, has considerably grown during the past twenty years: What does entrepreneurship mean? How has business activity changed? How does entrepreneurship affect education today? Past and contemporary literature,

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_2

23

24 

R. J. Crammond

witnessing the drivers of entrepreneurialism, are highlighted. Notable definitions of ­entrepreneurship are displayed to characterise the concept, and how this is depicted in research study. This is in relation to their respective eras in civilisation through the centuries, which shape the practice and resulting taught discipline. Additionally, opposing arguments concerning entrepreneurship and the creation of unique value, for society, are discussed. The concept of capitalism and the effects on entrepreneurship as a micro-­economic role within the market, regarding the changing waves of entrepreneurial activity, are also considered. The book’s first case study addresses the enduring born versus made debate, associated with entrepreneurial individuals.

2.2 Economic Theory and the Entrepreneur Entrepreneurial activity presents an opportunity to introduce novel and viable products and services which are established and delivered within given markets and industries (Baron 2002; Needle 2004; Burns 2011; Volkmann et al. 2009; Fayolle and Klandt 2006; EC 2015). Its continued source of innovation has been important for more than 1000 years, providing much desired and needed services to society (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Acs 2007). It is all about trying to make potentially new business prospects an economic reality (Oakey 2007; Timmons and Spinelli 2008; Deakins and Freel 2012). Entrepreneurship is commonly regarded as a social and economically enriching phenomenon, which can create employment and subsequent wealth in both the public and private sectors (Acs 2007). Wickham (2006) classifies four orders of entrepreneurial activity, including the Cantillon entrepreneur, the person that can ‘make’ the industry, the entrepreneur concerned with the administration of new ideas and solutions, and the owner of a small business. These are discussed further in the following section. It was during the seventeenth century that this concept of entrepreneurship was first developed. Defoe, in 1697, was considered the first to evaluate the notion and value of the ‘creative entrepreneur’, labelling them as the ‘projector’ (Redlich 1949). In compiling ‘The Universal

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

25

Dictionary of Trade and Commerce’ in 1757, Malachy Postlethwayt (d. 1767) is similarly recognised as being one of the first to differentiate between the creative capitalist and the inventor, and subsequently the legitimacy of market creating or market shifting innovation. This built a foundation upon which Schumpeter and others would follow and contribute to (Redlich 1949). During the eighteenth century, aspects and explanations of entrepreneurialism were witnessed and understood (Kirby 2003; Fayolle et  al. 2005). An entrepreneurial or economic undertaking means unternehmung in German and entrepredre in French (Fayolle et al. 2005). Fact Box 1 The now known term of Entrepreneur is the combination of the words “entre”: between, and also “prendre”: to take. (Bolton and Thompson 2004)

Deakins and Freel (2012) stated that French-Irish Economist Richard Cantillon (1680s–May 1734) first noted the vitality of entrepreneurialism, and its practice, in terms of economic enrichment and prosperity, which was primarily founded on the ideal of individual property rights (Casson 1982, 2003; Casson et al. 2008). Of the three classes in society recognised by Cantillon, entrepreneurs were the important class and were the central economic actors; the other two being landowners and workers (Carland et al. 1984). Jean-Baptiste Say defined an entrepreneur as one who considers a particular enterprise, and shifts economic resources from a lower area, into a higher situation, leading to greater productivity and potential success (Casson et al. 2008; Dana et al. 2008). Entrepreneurial traits and attributes however somewhat differ from that of a capitalist profile. Entrepreneurs attempt to acquire profitable and sometimes scarce, but desired, factors of production to realise new ventures and opportunities (Bruyat and Julien 2000; Casson 2003; Shane 2003).

26 

R. J. Crammond

Joseph Schumpeter’s view of the entrepreneur is that of an innovator, realising new technological processes and/or products. Acs (2007) stressed that entrepreneurship in practice is due to this intertwining of historical and technological considerations and effects, somewhat following the ideology of Schumpeter. Dominant sub-disciplines of entrepreneurship, whether it be small or larger scale business management, the entrepreneurial process, and appreciating behaviours surrounding entrepreneurial activity are sometimes contextually ill-defined, with sparse agreement concerning appropriate content towards attributable fields (Gibb 2002; Matlay 2006; Anderson and Starnawska 2008). A certain evolution of the meaning of entrepreneurship is witnessed through the various assertions as seen above (Hébert and Link 1982; Hébert and Link 1988; Kirby 2003; Berglann et  al. 2011). Amongst the plethora of labels attached to the word, entrepreneurship involves undertaking a business, recognising an opportunity whilst accounting for risk, and constantly innovating goods and services (Henry et al. 2005). Redlich (1949) examined both the terms ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘creative entrepreneur’ over a 250-year period. The term ‘entrepreneur’ began evolving in its meaning from an ‘undertaker’ to ‘adventurer’ and ‘projected’. The intersection of entrepreneurship with that of financial markets and hopeful economic growth does bring to the fore a case for and a case against entrepreneurship (Audretsch 1999 in Libecap 1999). In an environment, that is post-recessionary, conflicts of interest between certain factions of organisations, industries, and communities are seen and, as mentioned, with a lack of governmental help, the opportunities for some to realise their entrepreneurial abilities can be limited (Klapper 2004; O’Connor 2013). Theories of entrepreneurship and growth are innermost established explanations for SME (small and medium-sized enterprise) performance (Bryson et al. 1999; Kuratko et al. 2001). The entrepreneurial phenomenon has formed revolutionary markets and social landscapes. The widening of markets and growth of industries in many countries has of course encouraged entrepreneurship (Knight 2000; Stokes et al. 2010). Economic theory has enabled ­researchers to comprehend and establish

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

27

an understanding of entrepreneurship as it was, and now is, displayed (Low and MacMillan 1988; Bruyat and Julien 2000; Kirby 2003). Economists regard entrepreneurs as individuals who continually organise a number of production factors and concepts: competition, costbenefit analysis, economic efficiency, economic freedom, laws of supply and demand, marginal analysis, opportunity costs, short run and long run, and trade-offs. National economies, composed of economic institutions, are societal attempts to organise the way we convert resources into viable goods and services (Acs 2007). Essentially, this economic process and the entrepreneurial process are far from dissimilar (Burke 2006). Entrepreneurs generally hold the main objectives involving economic, social, and human aspects during the realisation of entrepreneurial outcomes; embracing exogenous, expansionary, and endogenous entrepreneurship (O’Connor 2013). Significantly, our understanding of entrepreneurship through time can be the economic backdrop that it existed within at the time. Schools of economic thought, attributed to certain periods of western civilisation, allows us to appreciate and comprehend more so the actions and interactions of entrepreneurs and related individuals and groups (now commonly referred to as s­ takeholders). Casson (2003) states that during 1990s, entrepreneurship and its educational connotations were neglected in wide scale research. Casson (2003) outlines the four main approaches to entrepreneurship, as identified in economic theory: factor distribution of income, the market process (The Walrasian Concept of Perfect competition), Schumpeterian: the innovator/regulated growth and fluctuation, and the entrepreneur and the firm (‘decision maker’). The entrepreneur provides a catalyst for economic development that unites all the necessary means of production, subsequently moving resources from less to more productive areas (Say 1816). Fact Box 2 Sources of creative destruction include appreciating changes in technology, politics, regulation, and society. (Shane 2003)

28 

R. J. Crammond

The evolutionary thinking following neo-classical ideals provided greater opportunity for entrepreneurs to flourish in the widened markets that were envisioned. Neo-classical economics has previously never suitably dealt with the entrepreneur in relation to micro-economic theory (Casson 1982; Kent 1990; Fayolle 2007).

2.2.1 Entrepreneurialism and the Eighteenth Century Entrepreneurs during the eighteenth century travelled and introduced their ideas and products into new communities (Casson 2003; Shane 2003; Matlay 2006). The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment brought about new industries and markets where entrepreneurs immersed themselves into new cultures. These influxes of different people and backgrounds brought about a cultural and societal rejuvenation not seen before (Baumol 1968; Casson 1982; Lipsey and Chrystal 2004). Ideas of opportunity, production, and personal autonomy were realised, through people’s aspirations and entrepreneurial behaviour such as those early descriptions outlined by Cantillon (1755). People during this time, who took advantage of these profitable opportunities, were increasingly regarded as ‘entrepreneurs’ (Casson 2003; Dana et al. 2008). During the eighteenth century, Cantillon recognised the crucial roles attributed to the entrepreneur in economic theory. He outlined various characteristics and situations that an entrepreneur would encounter, which subsequently became of further interest and investigation to economists at this time. Cantillon recognised that these differences between demand and supply in a given market create potential, entrepreneurial opportunities for acquiring materials and products at a low price, then selling at a higher, and therefore profitable price.

2.2.2 T  he Nineteenth Century: Industry and Innovation The passing of the enlightenment contributed to the later emerging and settling nature of entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial mind-set, ­business skills, and economic growth through privately-owned businesses

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

29

(Dana et al. 2008). This led to a reorganisation and regeneration towards enterprising activity and growing regional prosperity, which were driven by society. At the closing of the nineteenth century, and into the twentieth, a period of tremendous creativity and innovation was witnessed in the public-service field (Drucker 1985). The history of entrepreneurship development and notoriety, with notable foundations in economic theory and its principles, is relevant to this book. In appreciating past considerations of entrepreneurship, from scholars from centuries ago, we can understand the considerable shift in research from these economic and management disciplines to a currently, wider spectrum of fields which focus on entrepreneurship and its surrounding themes. Literature concerning entrepreneurship’s history is unfortunately subject to conceptual and contextual debate (Matlay 2005b, 2006). However, entrepreneurship has for many centuries, been discussed with critical economic concepts such as industrial and economic growth, job creation, the supplying of produced and marketed goods, and social prosperity (Cantillon 1755; Schumpeter 1934; Casson 1982). Bruyat and Julien (2000) generalised that the entrepreneurial phenomenon is essentially a concept that, in practice, can be volatile and hard to predict. The concept of entrepreneurship is now viewed in wider, cultural contexts, attributable to many societal and organisational constructs. Fayolle et al. (2005) identified three forms of entrepreneurship: individual, small business, and organisational. These forms have been developed during particular, historical periods, and the interaction between them.

2.2.3 T  he Twentieth Century: Theorising Entrepreneurship During this time, the ideals of Knight, Schumpeter, and latterly Drucker for example aimed to crystallise entrepreneurial ideas into theorised concepts and definitions (Bygrave and Hofer 1991). Knight highlighted the balance of risk and reward in entrepreneurial decision making, during the process (Casson 1982). Schumpeter added to the work of Say and

30 

R. J. Crammond

Cantillon, speaking of creative destruction and the notion of introducing new and innovative ideas into the market. This differs from the Kirznerian ideology 30 years later, which focussed on the individual’s ability to solve the problem with available information. Drucker expressed the notion of entrepreneurship advancing into organisations, utilising existing resources, and learning from entrepreneurial behaviour (Drucker 1985; Shane 2003). Since the work of Cantillon, economists including Mill, Say, and Marshall during the nineteenth century, to Schumpeter, Knight, Kirzner throughout the twentieth century, contributed to the benefits of entrepreneurialism and the entrepreneur within an economy, adding to economic practices and theoretical appreciation (Casson 1982). Frank Knight (1885–1972) acknowledged risk taking as a pivotal and typical feature of entrepreneurship and enterprising behaviour (Casson 1982). This notion has since been called the ‘Risk-Bearing Theory’. Knight adopted the economic thoughts of early economists such as Cantillon and Say, and added a dimension of risk awareness and risk taking. Knightian theory considers uncertainty as a central factor of production. The entrepreneur earns increasing profit as a reward for taking increasing risk (Casson 1982, 2003). Knight prompted a differing view to entrepreneurship to that of Schumpeter during the twentieth century. Knight, strongly inspired by Cantillon, described the distinction between predictability of risk and uncertainty. Knight took the view that entrepreneurship is characterised by behaviour under this uncertainty. Additionally, he argued that this produced real profit. Knight extended the Cantillon philosophy and focussed on entrepreneurial behaviour being in dynamic market economies, amidst uncertainty. He took the view that entrepreneurs were therefore responsible for economic prosperity, by addressing and engaging in unpredictable, economic situations. Whilst the Schumpeterian ideology promoted an entrepreneur as a dynamic innovator, the Knightian entrepreneur was regarded as the bearer of this related risk. Schumpeter (1928, 1934, 1961) outlined several and surrounding external factors, crucial to opportunity exploitation and, as he defined it, creative destruction. Through the lens of the Schumpeterian model, entrepreneurs assume a large level of risk, assembling an enormous ­

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

31

amount of capital, in implementing innovations which look to restructure major industries (Kent 1990; Kirby 2003). Schumpeter (1928), who continued Say’s work on entrepreneurial creativity and emerging innovation in new markets, asserted that realising and taking advantage of emerging or potential opportunities were the initial motivators and main objectives of entrepreneurship. Schumpeter’s (1934) Big Five Elements of Entrepreneurship, initially characterises entrepreneurial behaviour. These five elements are the emergence of novel goods, new approaches to producing such goods, the establishment of original or developed marketplaces, different or novel supply streams, and continuous industrial reorganisation (Kirby 2003) Israel Kirzner (1979) held the notions of spontaneous learning and alertness as the two fundamental characteristics of entrepreneurialism. Kirznerian economics considers the alertness in recognising opportunities is more characteristic than the process of innovation, in describing what entrepreneurship is. Kirzner’s view compares entrepreneurial behaviour to the actions of Robinson Crusoe (Kirzner 1979). According to Kirzner, the market is driven by entrepreneurs and their alertness. The Austrian School opposes the German, Schumpeter belief that only in the state of disequilibrium are there opportunities for entrepreneurial profit. Schumpeter referred to the entrepreneurial process as witnessing opportunities and creating entities (organisations) with the means to follow through the idea (Bygrave and Hofer 1991; Kent 1990; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Harvey Leibenstein’s (1922–1994) x-efficiency theory considers entrepreneurialism as filling space in the market for new and innovative opportunities. The theory recognises factors such as market trends, and the development of new goods and/or processes into the market (Shane 2003). Peter Drucker (1909–2005) values innovation, related resources, and notable entrepreneurial behaviours as drivers of entrepreneurship. Optimistically for growing and inclusive entrepreneurialism, Drucker involves the organisation and early notions of intrapreneurship. As Shane (2003) illustrated, Drucker’s characteristics of entrepreneurship, and his viewpoint of entrepreneurialism, is applicable to all through education and can transcend a diverse organisation by different modes of exploitation.

32 

R. J. Crammond

2.3 Evolved Understandings of Entrepreneurship Advancements were established in the body of knowledge, yet a lack of substantial theoretical foundations was an issue (Gartner 1985; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Berglann et  al. 2011; Aldrich 2012). Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of new information and having the skill set to use this information to your advantage (Kent 1990). These activities demand a control of risk by having both superior knowledge and access (Gray 2006; Bicknell et al. 2010). Entrepreneurialism thrives on the chance of change, which others may find uncomfortable (Krueger 2002; Llewellyn and Wilson 2003; Bolton and Thompson 2004). The Oxford English Dictionary provides another definition: an individual who aims to profit through both assessing and taking risk, and displaying timely resourcefulness (Burns 2011). Definitions such as this encompass a variety of entrepreneurship-related operations, including production innovation, new ventures and start-ups, and multi-level and international analysis (Jennings et al. 2013). Economically speaking, entrepreneurship is regarded as a much needed, but sometimes scarce resource (Casson et  al. 2008). Arguably, entrepreneurship is regarded as a restrictive but accepted lifestyle or career (Bolton and Thompson 2004). It is very much the norm in modern society (Shrader and Simon 1997; Timmons and Spinelli 2008). Innovations from entrepreneurial activity can transform the world in which we live in (Risker 1998; Brockhaus et al. 2001; Needle 2004). It is widely agreed that defining entrepreneurship and establishing the field is complex, usually providing little agreement towards research objectivity and results in heterogeneous outcomes and opposing perspectives (Bruyat and Julien 2000). Nevertheless, many scholars, since early research of entrepreneurship and economic theory began, disagree as to a precise or universal meaning of the term entrepreneur (Kent 1990; Dana et  al. 2008; Weber 2012). Previous perceptions of entrepreneurs have been arguably misguided and negative (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). The considered persona of the individual rather than their actions has

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

33

labelled the entrepreneur wrongly. Entrepreneurs, especially when amongst elite, affluent societies, are regarded as those who indulge in a selfish form of financial accumulation as aforementioned. Fiscal entrepreneurs have been regarded as simply money-oriented, venture capitalists (Bolton and Thompson 2004). This depiction of entrepreneurs and associated activities does not always highlight the many benefits of entrepreneurial, philanthropic, and regenerating activities towards local communities, including ethnic minorities and the disadvantaged of society.

2.4 The Nature of the Modern Enterprise Research related to entrepreneurship has matured greatly since its notable beginnings during the latter half of the twentieth century (Shane 2003). Clearer associations are observed between the realisation of entrepreneurialism, our understanding of the individuals and traits involved, and its ultimate teaching and dissemination, as its related knowledge spills over into education and big business. Fayolle et al. (2005) comment on this ‘state of the art’ of expanding entrepreneurship and small business related research, which has acquired an academic domain in its own right. This includes depictions and descriptions of entrepreneurship which have grown over time, amidst changing economic events and fortunes. During the mid-1980s, entrepreneurship established itself with a sound foothold as its own academic discipline (Gartner 1985; Birley 1986; Kent 1990). The entrepreneurial spirit is now witnessed globally, giving rise to the proliferation of interest in the researched field in the past 25 years (Peng 2001; McDougall et al. 2003). During the 1980s, great attention was focused on the entrepreneur. However, they failed to appreciate them within a complex process of economic growth and development (Kent 1990; Acs 2007). Research on the entrepreneurial process was a key component of initial attempts to conceptualise entrepreneurship (Gilder 1984; Drucker 1985). Constructing purposeful and coherent conceptual frameworks in entrepreneurship research has, accounting for contextual and definitional variances, been successful (Garavan and O’Cinneide 1994; Matlay

34 

R. J. Crammond

2005a). Landström et al. (2012) document that, at first, scholars interested in entrepreneurship simply followed from where the psychologists had researched: attempting to identify specific entrepreneurial traits and personalities. This ideology towards entrepreneurship research has now diverged into considering a number of other contributing factors and variables (Greene and Saridakis 2007; Turker and Selcuk 2009). Similar studies document the strategies used by entrepreneurs that have been identified to display important commonalities, issues, and trade-offs. Various types of entrepreneurs and their motivations and methods have instigated further investigation on the many psychological considerations and factors which can forecast potential success in later years (Kickul and Gundry 2002; Llewellyn and Wilson 2003). The economic and social aspects of entrepreneurial activity, and the success of active small businesses, have positively aided both job and wealth creation and the regeneration of local and regional economies (Upton et al. 2001; and Chrisman et al. 2003; McDougall et al. 2003). Examples of research in the 1990s included attempts to theorise and conceptualise entrepreneurship (Bygrave and Hofer 1991; Herron et  al. 1991; Cooper 1998). Venture financing research emerged in the 1990s, instigating further practices and reporting (Shepherd and Zacharakis 2001; Shepherd et al. 2003). Also, progressive analysis of intrapreneurship and the need for entrepreneurial cultures within organisations and current businesses has increased in literary popularity during the past few years (Zahra et al. 1999; Morris et al. 2001; Kuratko et al. 2001). Researchers sought to gain a clearer appreciation of the mechanisms adopted by entrepreneurs during such entrepreneurial activity, providing conceptual models on the individual processes of entrepreneurs and their interactions within the market towards future economic development. Also comprehended, has been the issue of addressing the personalities of entrepreneurs through a psychological lens (Krueger 2002; Marcati et al. 2008). The latter had been considered a more stationary approach to entrepreneurship research, given a wide belief that few, instead of many, hold these set of traits to be viewed and analysed in any great number. Academics have contributed countless works in entrepreneurship, which intersect with research areas that directly or indirectly affect the nurture,

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

35

growth, and maintenance of entrepreneurial behaviour and process. These include areas such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and law (Kirby 2003). Research indicates failure rates of entrepreneur-led businesses have been reported as of up to 80%, with the losses and/or pitfalls including financial, psychological impacts towards the entrepreneur, family reasons, economic issues, and social problems (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Other, equally damaging pitfalls and failures of the entrepreneurial practice can include businesses being created in the absence of any sound financial and business advice, monetary investment that can add considerable risk to the lifestyles of themselves and families, and an occasional likelihood of business ideas being ill-prepared in terms of a realistic vision and long-term strategy (Bridge et al. 2003; Bolton and Thompson 2004). A distinct characteristic which displays this emergence is the noticeable shift from necessity to opportunity entrepreneurs (Henderson and Robertson 2000; Bolton and Thompson 2004). Recognising and exploiting profitable opportunities in the form of entrepreneurial ventures may result in new organisations or simply revitalise present organisations; however, this is always subject to these many volatile factors including consumer preference (Oviatt and McDougall 1994; Dean and Meyer 1996; Steier 2007). Research transcends many disciplines of academia and working life (Myers 2013). As displayed in recent literature, the entrepreneurial field partly rids itself of its restrictive economic and management connotations (Casson 1982; Minniti and Lévesque 2008). The growth of entrepreneurship research, in itself, goes to show the sheer interest in the field, as an academic and/or research area, as a means to provide real solutions to social, economic, and cultural problems. Attempts have been made to construct a theoretical framework surrounding entrepreneurship since research in the field intensified during the latter part of the twentieth century (McMullan and Long 1987; Matlay 2012). As detailed in the previous section, concerning attempts to achieve a universal definition of entrepreneurship, vast and varied translation of the business activity has become apparent. Unsurprisingly, this does present its problems.

36 

R. J. Crammond

Entrepreneurship is this major area of business activity which has both developed its own technique and unearthed its own particular research (Rae 2007). The study of entrepreneurship is vast and is a continuously expanding field (Anderson and Starnawska 2008; Matlay 2009; Keating and McLoughlin 2010; Meyer et al. 2014). It is therefore necessary to establish theories which endeavour to produce more productive and effective empirical research. Landström et  al. (2012) express entrepreneurship as an evolving and ever-changing field of research, which has shifted to a more formal, core knowledge form basing its derivations from older theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Additionally, they call for future studies being knowledge-based which develop both new and established entrepreneurial concepts, incorporating the areas of entrepreneurship and innovation. The growth in entrepreneurship research has produced valuable synergies with a deeper understanding of more established, core concepts, research methods, and overriding principles (Aldrich 2012). It influences institutional, political, and legal frameworks. However, with these attempts at determining a rooted, conceptual framework, there is debate on whether this research is the result of development in the field or simply that the field is getting bigger (Sexton 1988 in Bruyat and Julien 2000). Research has displayed certain permeability in the field with an array of paradigmatic positions being adopted by scholars, authors, and researchers. Entrepreneurship research also analyses the many barriers to entry (Kolodko 2000; McElwee and Al-Riyami 2003). These include issues of identifying entrepreneurial capabilities and skills, devising a strong business plan, and attaining the required finance. Entrepreneurship research has encompassed a wide collection of academic disciplines and focussed specialties. These include applied economic development, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurship, ethnic entrepreneurship, family business, free enterprise, high-technology ­ business, micro-enterprise development, minority entrepreneurship, new product development, new venture creation, private enterprise, professional practice studies, small business, and female entrepreneurship (Katz 2003). This increase of entrepreneurship

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

37

research during the twentieth century contributed to a number of subsequent events, including clearer social and business constructs related to entrepreneurship research and practice, the increase in published research, a more inclusive approach to entrepreneurship and its understanding, greater opportunities with regards to funding and support, and the acknowledgement and centralisation of the researched field. All of the above trends have been affected by globalisation (adapted from Aldrich 2012). Since 2010, entrepreneurship research has continuously grown at exponential rates across the globe (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Brockhaus et  al. 2001; Fayolle 2010; Matlay 2012). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) consider two phenomena: enterprising individuals and entrepreneurial opportunities. Researchers must examine the nature of individuals who respond and act upon attractive opportunities, the opportunities in question and the particular nexus, along with its features between these individuals and opportunities. Drucker (1985), for example, takes the view that innovation is a real, workbased process. Innovation requires the knowledge to act on entrepreneurial ideas. Drucker, and others, highlight innovation as an effect on economy and society. The resources used include raw materials, products, processes, marketing, and the evolved organisation (Needle 2004). The result of such innovation leads to new products, services, production techniques, operating practices, ways of delivering such products or services to new or emerging consumers, means of informing consumers and the marketplace, ways of managing relationship within the organisations, and ways of managing relationship between organisations (Wickham 1998; Casson et  al. 2008). Within literature, terms such as creativity and innovation have been used to highlight or discuss the same thing (Hisrich and Kearney 2004). However, creativity is a core, cognitive, and integrative building block, needed for subsequent innovation to take place. Hisrich and Kearney (2004) believe that the ability to be creative is inherent in individuals and the capability to solve complex situations and problems is instilled within them. It is simply whether the individual in question is aware of it or not.

38 

R. J. Crammond

2.5 Capitalism and Work An assumption that is now slowly disappearing in recent research was that entrepreneurialism was a lifestyle predominantly for already wealthy or higher classed individuals (Shane 2003; Casson et al. 2008). Similarly, examples of successful, self-made entrepreneurialism are not solely restricted to connotations and reflections of the American Dream, or the disadvantaged poor-boy-made-good. Entrepreneurial behaviour can reside in all societies, social constructs regardless of race, age, or economic circumstance, and across multi-disciplinary sectors and organisations (Brockhaus et  al. 2001; Burns 2011; EC 2012, 2015). The nature of entrepreneurship, in itself, has in the past been associated with purely economically motivated connotations. Confusion has, at times, lay between an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). Of course, a rebuilding of economies in a free market will bring about interest from small business, public entities, and major multinational organisations. Entrepreneurship now involves a diverse, broad church of people, from all occupations and lifestyles, with a differing purpose for a differing audience. Significantly, the interconnected nature of modern entrepreneurship, within global organisations regarding local, social, technological, and environmental issues is placed high on the agenda. A firm’s corporate and social responsibility for example intrudes and widens entrepreneurial activities which reach people, communities, and groups. The entrepreneur co-ordinates production: being the what, how, and for whom of the organisational or entrepreneurial process (Baron 2002; Shane 2003; Bolton and Thompson 2004; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). The systematic steps involved range from idea conception to continuous review of the product or service, in making entrepreneurial ideas, creations, and innovations a viable and useful reality. Whether realised or not, the creative and innovative processes are fundamental during the initial and on-going phases of entrepreneurial activity. Continued attempts by scholars and practitioners to simplify and conceptualise a practical process which can be applied to entrepreneurs regardless of the unique context are desired. Entrepreneurial companies are primarily driven by the growth, ambitions, and desire of owners to create wealth

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

39

(Pike et al. 2012). Success and failure factors in developing new business products and services are varied, depending on scale and size (De Brentani 1991; Audretsch 2006). Entrepreneurial situations hold opportunities that identify how an entrepreneur recognises or creates opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Eckhardt and Shane 2003). One of the key areas of entrepreneurship research is that of understanding entrepreneurship within the market, as a micro-economic solution to social, economic, and cultural problems (Dibben et  al. 2003; Matlay 2006, 2011). Economic theorists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century predominantly highlighted the creative and stimulating nature of entrepreneurship, when considering it with market conditions and reconstruction (Schumpeter 1934; Casson 1985; Shane 2003). Growth and rejuvenation in the economy can arguably owe considerable debt to members of society who wish to bear a given amount of personal, financial, and business risk (Bolton and Thompson 2004). This is in exchange for the possibility of improving their personal standard of living and increasing their financial and employment statuses, and future prosperity. Entrepreneurship and opportunity recognition can be a means to addressing current market failures, both locally and nationally. Market shifts from economic highs to lows, or vice-versa, present the option for individuals to display entrepreneurial behaviour or businesses to diversify or innovate their operations. The entrepreneurial and managerial fields, as expressed above, are not mutually exclusive, but overlap. The former is driven by opportunity; with the latter more conversational-driven (Stewart et al. 1999). In either field, entrepreneurs are greatly needed and wanted in economies (Fletcher 1999; McLarty 2005; Nabi and Holden 2008). Entrepreneurs have the ability to discover and develop opportunities (Ardichvili et  al. 2003). This practice of opportunity recognition can involve all occupations and intend to make aware and improve social and political situations (Timmons and Spinelli 2008; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). It is commonly regarded in research that a business opportunity that may arise for an entrepreneur shall consist of up to four elements (Low and MacMillan 1988; Busenitz et al. 2003). These include a need, in the market, in particular business or society in general; means to meet that given need; a methodical plan to apply the means to fulfil

40 

R. J. Crammond

the need; and ways to benefit by implementing this plan, towards introducing a new product or service (Casson 1982; Gibb 2002; Kirby 2003). The concept of the entrepreneurial process, whether it is viewed through the individual or the collective practises undertaken, is a central area of entrepreneurship research and discussion (Birley 1986; Jack and Anderson 1999; Casson et al. 2008). Entrepreneurship is concerned with individuals within given contexts (Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006). Entrepreneurship involves small and detailed incremental changes (Kent 1990; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). It is a complex phenomenon, taking into consideration psychology, social, economic, and organisational aspects (Gartner 1985; Stevenson and Jarillo 1990; Fayolle 2007). This process and expectant entrepreneurial activity stimulates innovation (Cooper 1998; Risker 1998; Romijn and Albaladejo 2002). Guzmán and Liñán (2005) elaborate that entrepreneurship is a cohesive concept which permeates an individual’s business. An important factor within this process is dealing with scarce resources and these volatile contexts (Casson 1982; Shane 2003).

2.5.1 Debating the Entrepreneurial and Capitalist Relationship Governmental policy is key in encouraging entrepreneurialism. The influence of governmental policy can centralise and amplify the numerous societal benefits of entrepreneurialism, which is inclusive to all. Two basic functions of business involve innovation and marketing (Burns 2011). The mystery, mystique and some may regard magic of entrepreneurial activity can transform local and regional economies, as it realises the capabilities of individuals, organisations, and communities (Matlay 2006, 2008, 2011). Entrepreneurship can allow people involved in the activity to increase their standard of living, by introducing new products and services (Bolton and Thompson 2004). However, it can be viewed by many as capitalistic, opportunistic, and restrictively self-fulfilling (Burns 2011). Nevertheless, multiple benefits of entrepreneurship include endorsing greater opportunity recognition from individuals and from organisations, for societal benefit (Ardichvili et al. 2003).

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

Case Study I: Debating Entrepreneurship: Born or Made? I thoroughly enjoy going to teaching and research conferences. They are a starting point for topical conversation, reasoned debate, and valuable networking. During my time as a PhD student from 2013 to 2016, it was a great opportunity to meet new people and develop research ideas for future writing, at these types of academic or industry themed conferences. One conference, although not research focussed, which I have attended and followed since, is the annual NACUE Student Enterprise Conference. NACUE, the National Association of College and University Entrepreneurs, brings students, universities, and enterprising ideas together in a fun-filled weekend of keynotes, presentations, workshops, competitions, and other related events. I first attended the conference in 2014, at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU). It was an exciting and productive weekend. I was impressed with the quality of ideas and business ventures that have started and since succeeded in the marketplace. Also, the stories told by new entrepreneurs were beneficial to students hoping to embark on a similar path. With this in mind, I was keen to get involved the following year. Having held numerous discussions leading up to NACUE’s 2015 Conference, hosted at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), I wished to introduce an academic perspective to the proceedings where possible. Of course, enterprise affects many walks of life, and in many different ways. A number of anthropological, sociological, and political themes surrounding enterprise are relevant. However, one area that has always interested me is the longstanding debate: are entrepreneurs born, or are they in fact made? The hour-long debate and casual conversation surrounding this question involved research students, entrepreneurs, and professors. For me, it was great to have this wider discussion, with a participative audience and within the NACUE conference setting. Defence of the born argument highlighted the perceived, innate, or natural abilities. These include the ability to respond to opportunities, and the development of ideas into action. With this stance, entrepreneurs have this instinct to think of ideas and provide solutions to problems, whether it be in the form of an innovative product, a valued and sought after service, or overall brand being established. This argument was further entrenched and evidenced by the number of family-run businesses across the country, that make up over 99% of businesses registered in the United Kingdom as a small and medium-sized enterprise. This generational exposure to business engrains an entrepreneurial environment for young entrepreneurs to flourish. On the other hand, the made argument acknowledged the impact of education: in primary, secondary, and tertiary forms. When introducing enterprise and entrepreneurship, this leaves a lasting impression on pupils,

41

42 

R. J. Crammond

students, and graduates. Also, fluctuating market factors push and pull people towards enterprise. They react and adapt to changing market conditions. This experience of real-world issues and situations heightens the chances of success, as individuals and businesses occasionally fail forward and learn accordingly. In essence, a longer-term engagement with businesses and society aids in the productivity and effectiveness of entrepreneurial activities. I believe that, in achieving some success, each entrepreneur or enterprising individual consists of ‘30% born characteristics’ and ‘70% made abilities’. Although these are rigid figures here and a fairly abstract assumption in general, I simply argue that it is a mixture of both sides of this debate. It is worthwhile to broach the born and made debate, as it introduces important research in the field. If it stimulates further discussion on inclusive entrepreneurship education and activity, then it can create something of value to individuals, groups, institutions, and society as a whole. Now, consider the following: Q1) Q2)

The born or made? debate: does it really matter to entrepreneurial universities? What can you do, as an educator or student, to prove that this is now irrelevant?

Educator: How can this debate be addressed in the modern classroom? Student: Which skills, that you possess, evidence and reflect worthwhile, entrepreneurial attributes?

2.6 Economic Theory and Entrepreneurship Education Definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education are now settling within small business environments and contextual, educational boundaries. The objectives, intentions, and wider benefits of entrepreneurialism, whether it is from the individual or the organisation, are more clearly expressed and understood. This includes crystallising the conceptual differences between the activities of an enterprise, the nature of entrepreneurship, and the contextual factors and variables of personality affecting entrepreneurial individuals (Wickham 2006). Wickham, for example, and others conclude that the modern world is

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

43

characterised by significant change and noticeable shifts in social, political, economic, and technological order. These result in developments in economic relationships and advancements in related technology. A typical, entrepreneurial venture or start-up involves a focus on a product or service, with a strong knowledge base in its given industry (Casson 1982, 2005). Developing a local, regional, and national enterprising culture was a late twentieth century political initiative promoting increased independence and entrepreneurial activity. However, this movement has its opponents. Developing an enterprising culture, where it is viewed as a restrictive lifestyle, brings about views of entrepreneurialism and its perceived links with capitalism and neo-liberalism. Students participating within entrepreneurship education programmes must understand the real-world complexities of a volatile, fluctuating, and globalised market (Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Neck and Greene 2011). Worthwhile and valuable entrepreneurship education involves emphasising awareness by students of the economic environment, and the factors which affect an entrepreneurial idea, as well as the highlighting of key entrepreneurial skills and the advancement of business acumen.

2.7 Entrepreneurial Understandings Within Education As expressed within this chapter, many definitions and descriptions of entrepreneurship have been witnessed. This has resulted in many perspectives discussed within the educational environment. These evolved understandings and perspectives are informed by, and impact, individuals, institutions, and society in general. Figure 2.1 below illustrates such a progression of earlier ideologies and notions of enterprise, towards its embedding within institutions and higher education, globally. What Does This Mean? The first, original concept that this book offers displays the progression of entrepreneurship as a transformative activity towards the realisation of

Leading the Industry & Institution

Evolved Entrepreneurial Understandings

Towards Society

Kirznerian (Contemporary)

Fig. 2.1  Evolved entrepreneurial understandings: individuals and institutions

Advancing Universities & Organisations

Druckerian (Continual)

Informing Individuals

Schumpeterian (Classical)

Crafting Ideas

Seeking Opportunities

44  R. J. Crammond

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

45

new ideas through innovation and the resultant shifting of markets. As discussed within the introductory chapter of this book, this concept, along with others in this book, introduces economic, societal, and educational connotations of entrepreneurship. This model aims to clarify definitions and descriptions surrounding enterprise and entrepreneurship, as an evolved appreciation, in a practical context. Schumpeterian, Kirznerian, and Druckerian ideologies of entrepreneurialism and organisational behaviour are displayed within the model, as idea generative, innovative, and transformative activities, respectively. However, this model is also applicable to many other theorists, as it primarily documents this process of the enterprising effect. The first part of the model acknowledges the initial spark of an idea, which needs to be crafted and reasoned, to create an opportunity and disrupt the market. The second part aligns Kirznerian’s notion of learning and adapting to accessible information, with that of seeking opportunities that are available to all. Lastly, the third and final part immerses entrepreneurialism within the emerging or prosperous organisation or entity. The continual crafting of ideas, with existing information, leads to the reasoned activity and success of businesses and universities. This model illustrates the changing nature of the individual towards the institutional immersion of enterprise and consistent entrepreneurial ­ behaviour. What Are the Practical Benefits? This model informs students, and provides a historical appreciation of the evolved, entrepreneurial understanding. Additionally, it encourages discussion concerning the impact of entrepreneurialism on society. With potential scenario playing, the classroom can understand today’s world, concerning market shifts and societal regenerations. In essence, it illustrates and contributes to the economic origins of core entrepreneurship literature through to the twenty-first century. This evolving concept can be primarily attributed to some of the practical worksheets enclosed within the appendix of this book. These include appendices A, B, and C.

46 

R. J. Crammond

2.8 Conclusion Reflecting on my own philosophical remark at the beginning of this chapter, Chap. 2 appreciates the history and evolution of economic theory, which has influenced entrepreneurship and what we have witnessed and understood from it, in society, today. However, what does it mean for the many forms of enterprise and entrepreneurship education? It means that universities have to undertake some reflection themselves. They must revisit their own objectives, and encourage traits such as question and inquiry, and review and resolve shown by their students. An initial and core motivation of entrepreneurship, which instigates such behaviour and activities, is the need and desire to improve standards of living, towards improving the state of society overall. Thus, with this in mind, a distinct quest for knowledge must be addressed within courses and programmes, which can then be articulated to students. With these courses and programmes carrying a bold, valuable, and stated institutional purpose, along with the personal, professional, economic, and developmental rewards, levels of motivation are expectedly raised. Additionally, raised levels of intention, and increased attractiveness to the university and its programmes, should also be evident. These forms of enterprise and entrepreneurship education are described and categorised in the next chapter. This chapter has displayed and discussed the evolved economic theory, which has included primitive to advanced ideals of entrepreneurship activity and behaviour. This has been influenced by changing economies, social constructs, and the introduction of advancing technology and communication. Early scholars of entrepreneurship previously confined this commercial practice to a small number of societies who looked to sharply shape economies, through undertaking considerable risk and uncertainty. These scholars have reflected on these changes, as the phenomenon that is entrepreneurialism has since proliferated. This chapter has also discussed an increasing appreciation of aspects of entrepreneurial activity, such as social entrepreneurship, and its now widely noticeable benefits towards individual autonomy and, more chiefly, societal regeneration or prosperity. Technological advancements in particularly have highlighted numerous benefits of such enterprising activity, bestowing a valued place in society as a career and productive lifestyle. This career and lifestyle is no longer for the select few but is a

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

47

path for resolving both societal and political problems. The changing nature of entrepreneurialism has had an effect on held beliefs and interpretations of the subject, resulting in notable changes seen in related research activity. As per Fig. 1.1, this chapter visits the following question: Q1.

In being relevant, productive, and valuable, what does entrepreneurship education really mean?

Author’s Response With our increased understandings of, and the reasonable settling of, entrepreneurship education meaning and practices, the taught discipline and researched field have notably developed. Entrepreneurship education has progressed to encompass skills-based, venture-based, and aspects of regenerative, societal change and sustainability starting from within the university context. The evolution of enterprising behaviour, and venture creation activities, has allowed it to be an inclusive and inviting prospect for all; if they are willing to seek the available education, advice, and support. Entrepreneurship education does primarily involve creating something of value, centred on reacting to business opportunities and market situations. However, it is also an opportunity to be a better version of yourself: personally, interpersonally, and professionally. It is an opportunity to improve your live, and the lives of others. The following chapter, Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts and Progress documents the shaping of perspectives, worldviews of enterprise, progress of this form of education, and its reach globally. This has included the evolved teaching methods, to promote the enterprise agenda to enrich the lives of individuals, communities, and nations.

References Acs, Z. J. (2007) ‘How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?’ American Institute for Economic Research: Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization. Vol.1(1), pp. 97–107.

48 

R. J. Crammond

Aldrich, H. E. (2012) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship’. Research Policy. Vol.41, pp. 1240–1248. Anderson, A.  R. and Starnawska, M. (2008) ‘Research practices in entrepreneurship: Problems of definition, description and meaning’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Vol.9(4), pp. 221–230. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development.’ Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(1), pp. 105–123. Audretsch, D. B. (1999) ‘Knowledge spillovers and the role of small firms’. In CRENOS Conference on Technological Externalities and Spatial Location, University of Cagliari, 24th–25th September. Audretsch, D.  B. (2006) Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Baron, R. A. (2002) ‘OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer conceptual links’. Research in Organisational Behaviour. Vol.24, pp. 225–269. Baumol, W.  J. (1968) ‘Entrepreneurship in economic theory’. The American Economic Review. pp. 64–71. Berglann, H., Moen, E.  R., Røed, K. and Skogstrøm, J.  F. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship: Origins and returns’. Labour Economics. Vol.18(2), pp. 180–193. Bicknell, A., Francis-Smythe, J. and Arthur, J. (2010) ‘Knowledge transfer: de-­ constructing the entrepreneurial academic’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.16(6), pp. 485–501. Birley, S. (1986) ‘The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process.’ Journal of business venturing. Vol.1(1), pp. 107–117. Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2004) Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Bridge, S., O’Neill, K. and Cromie, S. (2003) Understanding Enterprise: Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Brockhaus, R.  H., Hills, G.  E., Klandt, H. and Welsch, H.  P. (Eds.) (2001) Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Bruyat, C. and Julien, P. A. (2000) ‘Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.16(2), pp. 165–180. Bryson, J. R., Daniels, P. W. and Ingram, D. R. (1999) ‘Evaluating the impact of business link on the performance and profitability of SMEs in the United Kingdom’. Policy Studies. Vol.20(2), pp. 95–105.

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

49

Buchanan, D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Burke, R. (2006) Entrepreneurs Toolkit. London: Burke Publishing. Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N. and Zacharakis, A. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions’. Journal of Management. Vol.29(3), pp. 285–308. Bygrave, W. D. and Hofer, C. W. (1991) ‘Theorizing about entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.16(2), pp. 13–22. Cantillon, R. (1755) Essay on the Nature of Trade in General. Translated Edition, 1959. London: Henry Higgs. Carland, J.  W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.  R. and Carland, J.  A. C. (1984) ‘Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: a conceptualisation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.9(2), pp. 354–359. Casson, M. (1982) The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Casson, M. (1985) ‘Entrepreneurship and the dynamics of foreign direct investment’. In The Economic Theory of the Multinational Enterprise (pp. 172–191). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Casson, M. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship, business culture and the theory of the firm’. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. (pp. 223–246). California: Springer US. Casson, M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm’. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization. Vol.58(2), pp. 327–348. Casson, M., Yeung, B. and Basu, A. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H. and Steier, L. P. (2003) ‘An introduction to theories of family business’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(4), pp. 441–448. Cooper, S.Y. (1998) ‘Entrepreneurship and the location of high technology small firms; implications for regional development’. New Technology-Based Firms in the 1990s. London: Paul Chapman, pp. 247–267. Dana, L. P. (2011) World Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dana, L.  P., Welpe, I.  M., Han, M., Ratten. V. (2008) (eds.) Handbook of Research on European Business and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Theory of Internationalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elger Publishing. De Brentani, U. (1991) ‘Success Factors in Developing New Business Services’. European Journal of Marketing. Vol.25(2), pp. 33–59.

50 

R. J. Crammond

Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (2012) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms. 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Dean, T. J. and Meyer, G. D. (1996) ‘Industry environments and new venture formations in US manufacturing: A conceptual and empirical analysis of demand determinants’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.11(2), pp. 107–132. Dibben, M., Harris, S. and Wheeler, C. (2003) ‘Export Market Development: Planning and Relationship Process of Entrepreneurs in Different Countries’. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Vol.1, pp. 383–403. Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row. Drucker, P.  F. (2007) Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Classic Drucker Collection). Paperback. Eckhardt, J. T. and Shane, S. A. (2003) ‘Opportunities and entrepreneurship’. Journal of Management. Vol.29(3), pp. 333–349. European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012. European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2007) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: A general perspective. (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2010) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) (Eds.) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P. and Ulijn, J. M. (Eds.) (2005) Entrepreneurship research in Europe: outcomes and perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fletcher, M. (1999) ‘Promoting entrepreneurship as a career option-the graduate enterprise programme’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.23(3), pp. 127–139. Garavan, T. N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994) ‘Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation – Part 1’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.18(8), pp. 3–12. Gartner, W. B. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.10(4), pp. 696–706. 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. Vol.4(3), pp. 233–269.

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

51

Gilder, G. (1984) The Spirit of Enterprise. New York: Simon and Schuster. Gray, C. (2006) ‘Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.12(6), pp. 345–360. Greene, F. J. and Saridakis, G. (2007) ‘Understanding the factors influencing graduate entrepreneurship’. National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship Research Report. Vol.1. Guzmán, J. and Liñán, F. (2005) ‘Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Education: A US-Europe Comparison’. Jean Monnet European Studies Centre Universidad Antonio de Nebrija. Hébert, R. F. and Link, A. N. (1982) The Entrepreneur. New York: Praeger. Hébert, R. F. and Link, A. N. (1988) ‘The Entrepreneur: Mainstream views and radical critiques’. Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006) ‘An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible?’ Journal of Management Development. Vol.25(1), pp. 80–94. Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (2000) ‘Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career’. Career Development International. Vol.5(6), pp. 279–287. Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I’. Education and Training. Vol.47(2), pp. 98–111. Herron, L., Sapienza, H. J. and Smith-Cook, D. (1991) ‘Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume I’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.16(2), pp. 7–12. Hisrich, R. D. and Kearney, C. (2004) Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A. R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.5(3), pp. 110–125. Jennings, P.  D., Greenwood, R., Lounsbury, M.  D. and Suddaby, R. (2013) ‘Institutions, entrepreneurs, and communities: A special issue on entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.28(1), pp. 1–9. Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(2), pp. 283–300. Keating, A. and McLoughlin, D. (2010) ‘The entrepreneurial imagination and the impact of context on the development of a new venture’. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol.39, pp. 996–1009.

52 

R. J. Crammond

Kent, C.  A. (Ed.). (1990) Entrepreneurship Education: Current Developments, Future Directions. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Kickul, J. and Gundry, L.K. (2002) ‘Prospecting for Strategic Advantage: The Proactive Kierkegaard’ Kirby, D. A. (2003) Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kirzner, I. M. (1979) Perception, opportunity, and profit: Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klapper, R. (2004) ‘Government goals and entrepreneurship education  – An investigation at a Grande Ecole in France’. Education and Training. Vol.46(3), pp. 127–137. Knight, G. (2000) ‘Entrepreneurship and Marketing Strategy: The SME Under Globalisation’. Journal of International Marketing, Vol.8(2), pp. 12–32. Kolodko, G.  W. (2000) ‘Transition to a Market and Entrepreneurship: The Systemic Factors and Policy Options’. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol.33, pp. 271–293. Krueger Jr, N.  F. (2002) ‘The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship.’ In Handbook of entrepreneurship research. (pp. 105–140). Springer US. Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D. and Hornsby, J. S. (2001) ‘improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy’. Academy of Management Executive. Vol.15(4), pp. 60–71. Landström, H., Harirchi, G. and Åström, F. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base’. Research Policy. Vol.41(7), pp. 1154–1181. Libecap, G. D. (1999) ‘The Sources of Entrepreneurial Activity’. Vol.11. Jai Pr. Lipsey, R. G. and Chrystal, K. A. (2004) Economics. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Llewellyn, D. J. and Wilson, K. M. (2003) ‘The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology’. Education and Training. Vol.45(6), pp. 341–345. Low, M. B. and MacMillan, I. C. (1988) ‘Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges’. Journal of Management. Vol.14(2), pp. 139–161. Marcati, A., Guidoa, G. and Pelusob, A.  M. (2008) ‘The Role of SME Entrepreneurs’ Innovativeness and Personality in the Adoption of Innovations’. Research Policy. Vol.37, pp. 1579–1590. Matlay, H. (2005a) ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and does it matter?’ Education and Training. Vol.47(8/9), pp. 665–677. Matlay, H. (2005b) ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 627–643.

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

53

Matlay, H. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(5). Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 382–396. Matlay, H. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.16(2), pp. 355–368. Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182. Matlay, H. (2012) ‘International perspectives on entrepreneurship education and learning, introduction to the special issue’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(3), pp. 159–162. McDougall, P. P., Oviatt, B. M. and Shrader, R. C. (2003) ‘A Comparison of International and Domestic New Ventures’. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Vol.1, pp. 59–82. McElwee, G. and Al-Riyami, R. (2003) ‘Women entrepreneurs in Oman: some barriers to success’. Career Development International. Vol.8(7), pp. 339–346. McLarty, R. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship among graduates: towards a measured response’. Journal of Management Development. Vol.24(3), pp. 223–238. McMullan, W. and Long, W.  A. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the nineties’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.2(3), pp. 261–275 Meyer, M., Libaers, D., Thijs, B., Grant, K., Glänzel, W. and Debackere, K. (2014) ‘Origin and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field’. Scientometrics. Vol.98(1), pp. 473–485. Minniti, M. and Lévesque, M. (2008) ‘Recent developments in the economics of entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.23(6), pp. 603–612. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F. and Schindehutte, M. (2001) ‘Towards integration: understanding entrepreneurship through frameworks’. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship And Innovation. Vol.2(1), pp. 35–49. Myers, M. D. (2013) Qualitative Research in Business and Management. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Nabi, G. and Holden, R. (2008) ‘Graduate entrepreneurship: intentions, education and training’. Education and Training. Vol.50(7), pp. 545–551. Neck, H.  M. and Greene, P.  G. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.49(1), pp. 55–70.

54 

R. J. Crammond

Needle, D. (2004) Business in Context: An Introduction to Business And its Environment. 4th ed. Cengage Learning EMEA. O’Connor, A. (2013) ‘A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.28, pp. 546–563. Oakey, R. (2007) ‘A commentary on gaps in funding for moderate ‘non-stellar’ growth small businesses in the United Kingdom’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance. Vol.9(3), pp. 223–235. Oviatt, B.  M. and McDougall, P.  P. (1994) ‘Toward a Theory of International New Ventures’. Journal Of International Business Studies, Vol.25(1), pp. 45–64. Peng, M.W. (2001) ‘How Entrepreneurs Create Wealth in Transition Economies.’ Academy of Management Executive. Vol.15(1), pp. 95–110. Pike, R. H., Neale, B. and Linsley, P. (2012) Corporate Finance and Investment: Decisions and Strategies. 7th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Rae, D. (2007) Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Redlich, F. (1949) ‘The Origin of the Concepts of ‘Entrepreneur’ and ‘Creative Entrepreneur”. Explorations in Entrepreneurial History. Vol.1(2), pp. 1–7. Risker, D. C. (1998) ‘Toward an innovation typology of entrepreneurs’. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Vol.15(2), pp. 27–41. Romijn, H. and Albaladejo, M. (2002) ‘Determinants of Innovation Capability in Small Electronics and Software Firms in Southeast England’. Research Policy. Vol.31, pp. 1053–1067. Say, J. B. (1816) Catechism of Political Economy: Or, Familiar Conversations on the Manner in which Wealth is Produced, Distributed, and Consumed in Society. London: Sherwood, Neely and Jones. Schumpeter, J. (1928) ‘The instability of capitalism’. The Economic Journal. Vol.38(151), pp. 361–386. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J.A. (1961) Teoria do desenvolvimento econômico. Fundo de Cultura. Sexton, D. L. (1988) ‘The field of entrepreneurship: is it growing or just getting bigger’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.26(1), pp. 5–8. Shane, S.  A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.25(1), pp. 217–226.

2 Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature 

55

Shepherd, D. A. and Zacharakis, A. (2001) ‘Speed to Initial Public Offering of VC-Backed Companies.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.25(3), pp. 59–69. Shepherd, D. A., Zacharakis, A. and Baron, R. A. (2003) ‘VCs’ decision processes: Evidence suggesting more experience may not always be better’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(3), pp. 381–401. Shrader, R.  C. and Simon, M. (1997) ‘Corporate Versus Independent New Ventures: Resource, Strategy, and Performance Differences’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.12, pp. 47–66. Steier, L. (2007) ‘New venture creation and organization: A familial sub-­ narrative’. Journal of Business Research. Vol.60(10), pp. 1099–1107. Stevenson, H.  H. and J.  C. Jarillo (1990) ‘A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management’. Strategic Management Journal. Vol.11, pp. 17–27. Stewart, W. H., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C. and Carland, J. W. (1999) ‘A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.14(2), pp. 189–214. Stokes, D., Wilson, N. and Mador, M. (2010) Entrepreneurship. London: Cengage Learning. Timmons, J. A. and Spinelli, S. (2008) New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. 8th ed. London: McGraw Hill. Turker, D. and Selcuk, S. S. (2009) ‘Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.33(2), pp. 142–159. Upton, N., Teal, E.J. and Felan, J.T. (2001) ‘Strategic and Business Planning Practices of Fast-Growing Family Firms.’ Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.39(4), pp. 60–72. Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Marlotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009) Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative. Weber, R. (2012) Evaluating Entrepreneurship Education. Gabler Verlag. Wickham, P. (2006) Strategic Entrepreneurship. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Wickham, P. A. (1998) Strategic Entrepreneurship: A decision-making approach to new venture creation and Management. London: Pitman Publishing. Zahra, S.A., Kuratko, D.F. and Jennings, D.F. (1999) ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship and Wealth Creation: Contemporary and Emerging Perspectives.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.24(2), pp. 5–9.

3 Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts and Progress

Education enlightens; entrepreneurship education emboldens. Robert James Crammond

The above quote is one that I often state. I wish to make it clear to students that during any course that they undertake, it is their time and opportunity to become better versions of themselves. To become better people through increased understandings taken from their learning experiences, and to both question and discuss matters which are relevant to the course. However, fundamentally also, matters which mean something to them. The embedding of enterprise and entrepreneurship education within institutions, as discussed within this chapter, enriches these learning experiences further.

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_3

57

58 

R. J. Crammond

3.1 Introduction Internationally, notable strides have been made to share ideas and resources between countries and institutions. Entrepreneurial themes, topics, and concepts are represented in course and programmes, which are maintained in most higher education business schools around the world (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). However, as in any educational field, opinions and viewpoints on how best to teach the subject are prevalent (Fiet 2000a, b; Matlay 2008; Jones 2011, 2013). This chapter discusses the significant emergence of entrepreneurship education. Definitional understandings of entrepreneurship education have evolved to distinguish the development of enterprising skills (enterprise education), and the support towards new venture creation (entrepreneurship education), influencing entrepreneurship education pedagogy and continued delivery and support reporting. Additionally, how institutions have implemented and are likely to continue to maintain entrepreneurship education programmes, worldwide, are documented within this chapter. The second case study from this book, focussing on course and classroom preparation for entrepreneurship education, is also included.

3.2 Teaching Entrepreneurship Benefits of education include, primarily, the acquisition of new knowledge to better a person’s standard of life or an opportunity to escape particular social, economic, and political struggles, such as war, poverty, and unemployment (Hinchliff 2004; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). This can be achieved with the internalisation of what the education offered adds to the individual, through stages of knowledge acquisition, understanding and examination, such as the taxonomy process outlined by Bloom. Reflecting on, at least a generation of higher education has seen the introduction and development of entrepreneurship education, globally (Katz 2003; Fayolle 2010). This introduction of entrepreneurship into higher education curriculum and its development has influenced other programmes, including entrepreneurship education’s

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

59

adaptation and embedding into traditional business, management, and economic programmes. Definitively since the 1980s, entrepreneurship education has informed conceptual research and sought inspiration and empirical evidence from participatory and investigative observation (Katz 2003; Kuratko 2003). This has resulted in the growth and significant implementation of practical methods of delivery during the 1990s and determined conceived entrepreneurship education best practice within many non-business disciplines into the twenty-first century (EC 2008). It is by reviewing the path of entrepreneurship education, within the higher education context over past decades, that informed advancements from this book can be attained (examples such as Gorman et al. 1997; Pittaway and Cope 2007). Of course, the many individual entrepreneurship education courses and programmes, with academic support, will make reference to the direct correlation between the increase in the types of programmes and the growth of resultant activity at the graduate level (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Shefsky 2011). Student success stories, many of which were used in higher education branding to advertise post-certification achievements, document many examples of students progressing into working in small business or being self-employed. Academics and educators who support the born side of the debate see that it is through natural family ties and the cognition and environment that the entrepreneurs are situated in become a result of that environment. However, with political, economic, and social factors which fluctuate in a given environment, this also produces entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurs are born out of these circumstances and come into being through changing their life to achieve a desired lifestyle (Bolton and Thompson 2004). Given the various teaching methods available, as encouraged by academics and organisations such as Enterprise Educators (EEUK) and the influential and well-known National Centre for Entrepreneurship Education (NCEE), entrepreneurship education programmes and relevant enterprise courses can relay and facilitate related entrepreneurial activities within the higher education environment. The on-going debate which questions whether entrepreneurship education can be a taught subject or not has since been widely silenced. Contributors such as Drucker (1985), for example, supported the notion

60 

R. J. Crammond

that by providing suitable environments and valued content, that traits akin to entrepreneurial behaviour can be adopted and nurtured. Education about entrepreneurship is about describing and informing students (Lourenço et al. 2013). Education for entrepreneurship supports and facilitates students in becoming entrepreneurial individuals (Laukkanen 2000; Beresford and Beresford 2010; Gimmon 2014). This form of education provides a more developmental pedagogy, whereby learning is through practical application and reflection (Laukkanen 2000). The delivery, teaching, and assessment of entrepreneurship education display the practice of entrepreneurship as a science: something that can be conceptualised, translated, and taught (Drucker 1985; Jack and Anderson 1999; Kuratko 2003, 2005). However, an uncertainty could be, as pointed out by Jack and Anderson (1999), due to the reason that actual entrepreneurial activities and processes would naturally involve ‘art’ and ‘science’ relevant elements and applicable attributes. Similarly, to the previous section, entrepreneurship education can be seen as instilling a cognitive and practical process for entrepreneurs to follow (Deakins and Freel 1998; Fayolle and Gailly 2008). Alternatively, entrepreneurship education is seen as a programme of development, personally and interpersonally, and a means to encourage divergent and creative thinking (Blenker et al. 2012). Therefore, a debate lies on whether entrepreneurship education and inclusive strategies make it process-­orientated or development-orientated. This then brings about changing styles and delivery, as seen globally since the 1980s (adapted from Livesay 1982; Anderson and Jack 1999; Fayolle and Gailly 2008). Fact Box 3 Many scholars have argued that it was Harvard University who facilitated the first entrepreneurship education programmes in 1947. (Katz 2003; Kuratko 2003)

Entrepreneurs sometimes regard education as being unimportant or simply a diversion from them achieving their goals (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Burns 2011).

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

61

The growing importance of entrepreneurship education in universities demands a structured and methodological curriculum (Hytti and O’Gorman 2004). This curriculum, in individual module or programme form, must not only be of the appropriate standard of other university disciplines, but complement other modules or programmes within the institution. The degree attained must therefore balance the theoretical foundations of entrepreneurship and related academic fields with the practical experience and contemporary issues that are advantageous and encountered, respectively. It can be said that the institution’s awareness of these facets of entrepreneurship education, along with their duty to provide and maintain optimal training, are central in adequately preparing students for working life. Of course, entrepreneurship education can serve to support students wishing to work in the public or private sectors, in small enterprises or large organisations, across many industries and vocational areas. Learning and entrepreneurship is fundamentally a constructivist, behavioural, and social process (Rae 2005; Pittaway and Cope 2007). Arguably, entrepreneurship education can be described and analysed through four lenses of entrepreneurship: through general assumptions, by definition, didactically, and pedagogically (Blenker et al. 2012). It is also unclear whether developers and facilitators of entrepreneurship education programmes fully understand and address the philosophical fundamentals (Hannon 2007; Anderson and Starnawska 2008; Down and Warren 2008). Entrepreneurship education can help achieve this more efficiently and in timely manner. As Maritz and Brown (2013) and Harrison and Leitch (2005) insist, definitive entrepreneurship education learning and building a conceptual framework is the desired outcome from entrepreneurship education research. Preliminary findings suggest effective courses within business schools increase intention (Matlay 2005b; Mueller 2011). Many academics believe that they should regard entrepreneurship as falling within both scientific and artistic disciplines and domains (Jack and Anderson 1999). As an art form in the sense that it must naturally appear from the person, with little emphasis on process, technicalities, and methodical structure (Henry et al. 2005a). Given that entrepreneurship is regarded as a radical lifestyle choice, instigated by interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships and circumstances, difficulties for course developers and facilitators

62 

R. J. Crammond

have arisen (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Jones and Iredale 2010). Balancing levels of technicality and expression regarding entrepreneurship education programmes allow flexibility within the field to educate students; but increase ambiguity similar to that of the entrepreneurial activities sought after themselves (Rae 2004; Pittaway and Cope 2007). Jones et al. (2012) similarly subscribe to this belief that entrepreneurship education should be transformative and create enterprising mind-sets. Much of existing research in entrepreneurship education is a result of swift research that shows limited evidence of links between programme modification and increased student intentions, business start-ups, and entrepreneurial activities (Matlay 2006). Greater interest and urgency towards delivering curriculums based on entrepreneurship and local business should be seen by universities more prevalently (Mason 2010; Fayolle 2010).

3.2.1 What? It can be said with confidence that entrepreneurship education has grown significantly since it was first considered established during the mid-­ twentieth century (Gorman et al. 1997; Pittaway and Cope 2007; Hytti and O’Gorman 2004; Matlay 2005a; Pihkala et al. 2011). Initially, Old School’s teaching enterprise were delivered from the late 1940s (Kent 1990; Brockhaus 1993; Brockhaus et al. 2001). This approach to education has been met with a New School of Entrepreneurship, brought into prominence from the 1980s, which continually aims to acknowledge the new ideologies such as critical thinking, venture creation, and recognising entrepreneurial activities as a lifestyle, which are all documented in research and by practicing entrepreneurs (Obschonka et al. 2010; Maritz and Brown 2013). This emergence in the United States highlights a birth of entrepreneurship education in more developed countries, but may also explain its arrival and development in the western world (Kirby 2003; Matlay 2011). From these lectures in this field, held at Harvard since 1947, the field of entrepreneurship growth is described by a chronology of three domains: the programmes on offer, institutional support, and on-going research

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

63

(Katz 2003). There has been immense research into entrepreneurship education and its benefits since Myles Mace, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Corporate Management at Harvard Business School, delivered the first notable lecture at the institution (Katz 2003). However, the first notable programme in entrepreneurship was an MBA titled ‘Management of New Enterprises’. Peter Drucker also taught another programme six  years later, in 1953, at New York University. This was called Entrepreneurship and Innovation (Katz 2003; Kirby 2003). The interdisciplinary nature of the field allows many individuals from many walks of professional life and backgrounds to become entrepreneurial (Greene and Rice 2007; Aldrich 2012). Drucker, for example, leaves behind numerous words of wisdom in the mid-1980s concerning the growth of entrepreneurial education, activity and its interspersion into organisations, multiple industries, and many cultures. He states that managers are creators of wealth, and that entrepreneurship affects, and comes from, the internal organisation. Significantly, he asserts that the theories and processes related to entrepreneurship can indeed be taught, that the entrepreneurial society exists, and Schumpeterian and Kirznerian notions of evolved and innovative opportunity are there for all, thus promoting wider inclusivity (Drucker 1985). A dilemma, in creating and providing entrepreneurship education, is facilitating these programmes to a group of prospective students whilst allowing the opportunity for them to retain initial entrepreneurial motivations and personal aspirations. It is here that careful consideration as to the content, delivery, and participation of entrepreneurship education from facilitators is recognised. Appropriate involvement from students as to the activities, discussions held, and general progression of these programmes undertaken will empower them and reinforce the individuality that encouraged them to enrol in the first place. After the second world war, around the late 1960s and into the 1970s, people in secure jobs were increasingly fulfilling the Maslow ‘hierarchy of needs’ ideology by starting their own business (Katz 2003; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010; Daft 2011). Babson College introduced its first course in 1968 (Fetters et al. 2010). This education was an emerging force in business schools, with more programmes being established during the 1970s. These examples of entrepreneurship education grew during the

64 

R. J. Crammond

1970s (Fiet 2000a; Matlay 2005a, b; Fayolle 2007, 2010). The University of Southern California launched what is regarded as the original MBA course specialising in entrepreneurialism in 1971, with an undergraduate programme launched a year later (Guzmán and Liñán 2005). Since the mid-1970s, a greater involvement has been witnessed by government departments regarding education (Kirby 2003; Klapper 2004; Matlay 2009; Matlay and Hussain 2012). A now memorable speech at Ruskin College, Oxford in 1976, by James Callaghan, expressed fears that pupils could not evidence the necessary skills for working in industry. He was of the viewpoint that these skills, along with facilitating new capabilities, were required (Callaghan 1976). In general, entrepreneurship education experienced fragmented phases since the 1970s, including differences in programme structure, the content delivered, and assessments posed (Czuchry et al. 2004). Until the mid to late-1970s, very few universities and business colleges offered entrepreneurship courses (Vesper and Gartner 1997; Solomon et al. 2002; Katz 2003). Moving into the 1980s, over 250 higher education institutions were creating and delivering programmes in entrepreneurship (Solomon et al. 1994). Significantly, the growth in the body of entrepreneurship education research (Hornaday and Tieken 1983; Kirchhoff and Phillips 1988) and the increase of course material helps the continued rolling out of entrepreneurship education programmes (Vesper 1980; Ronstadt 1984; Timmons Timmons 1985). Noticeably, a growth was particularly seen at small and medium-sized universities (Zeithaml and Rice 1987). Therefore, this universal growth of entrepreneurship education facilitation occurred during this time (Guzmán and Liñán 2005). Entrepreneurial themes and concepts from informed research during the 1980s recommended that such programmes include sessions on skill building and negotiation, leadership, product development, thinking creatively, and innovation (McMullan and Long 1987; Vesper and McMullan 1988). Therefore, entrepreneurship education has around 50  years’ worth of history in intensive research and scientific study. Solomon (1988) unfortunately expressed, when considering a previously viewed ideology of entrepreneurship education progression, that the education system predominantly taught students to be capable employees, not prosperous and innovative businesspeople. Previous p ­ aradigms of

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

65

entrepreneurship education have been focussed on new venture creation. Moving into the final decade of the twenty-first century, scholars of the 1990s described traditional economic and entrepreneurship programmes as being too abstract and mathematical (Banaszak, in Kent 1990). The field was understandably conceived as a young paradigm (Bygrave 1989), with most empirical research done in given decades (1970–1990) (Wortman 1987), with the field very much in its infancy (Perryman 1982; Churchill and Lewis 1986; Ireland and Van Auken 1987). From the late 1980s to the 1990s, it became clear that there was a distinct lack of conceptual frameworks and definitions to strengthen programmes (Kollermeier 1992; Perryman 1982; Wortman 1987). The nature of entrepreneurship education and its desired or purposed direction was unspecified (Ireland and Van Auken 1987). By the late 1990s and into the millennium, entrepreneurship education provided in countries, such as the United Kingdom, were regarded as obvious reasons for the increase in graduates stating intentions to manage their own ventures (Matlay 2010). A multitude of programmes related to entrepreneurship education and new venture start-ups are created and delivered around the world (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Fetters et al. 2010). Notably since the 2000s, entrepreneurship education is delivered from compulsory education to college and universities in both developed and developing countries (Fayolle 2007, 2010; Dana et al. 2008; Dana 2011). Research in entrepreneurship education also strengthened, with greater efforts to investigate existing programmes, the contextual issues and successes, and its general evolution within the higher education environment (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Fayolle 2007, 2010; Dana et al. 2008; Fetters et al. 2010; Dana 2011). Increased research in entrepreneurship education has created debated paradigms, with the field viewed through in different lenses. Before the 1990s, entrepreneurship-related publications and specific journals did not extensively detail research on education, vocational training, or enterprise learning in smaller organisations (Matlay 2006). Today, entrepreneurship education in the United States, for example, has expanded to more than 2000 courses at over 1500 institutions (Kuratko 2005). In the United Kingdom and Europe, every nation has a

66 

R. J. Crammond

mixture of specialised centres of entrepreneurship education and varying forms of entrepreneurship education programmes, popularly within business schools. Educators of the twenty-first century are regarded as increasing entrepreneurship education legitimacy and providing a greater catalyst for business development, innovation, and growth through entrepreneurial students and graduates (Acs 2007). Entrepreneurial programmes are demanded by large organisations to obtain the flexibility and responsive deftness similar to that of individual entrepreneurs and innovative small businesses (Greene and Rice 2007). Into the twenty-first century, private and public companies trained and educated people to be more entrepreneurial (Fayolle 2000; Klandt 2004). This interest increased the concept of facilitating such education in compulsory, and further and higher academic institutions (Fleming 1994; Kolvereid 1996; Anderson and Jack 1999; Rae 2004, 2005; Draycott and Rae 2011). The directed and simplistic nature of some of educational philosophers’ words provide inviting paradigm shifts from traditional to more progressive, practical, and participatory forms of knowledge transfer. A link between progressive ideology and that of the modern delivered, lifestyle-­relevant education pursues. Another suggested proposition from progressive education is that heightened education is one that is aware and inclusive of societal values and the community around oneself. This is particularly important when the intersection between education and entrepreneurship is witnessed, with gaps in interdisciplinary subjects closing rapidly within the educational environment. Entrepreneurial modules and programmes tend to pay attention to the individual entrepreneur. However, enterprise education is related to the greater context and groupings of stakeholders (Dew and Sarasvathy 2007; Matlay 2009, 2011). However, this statement is questioned, due to the interchangeable use of both entrepreneurship and enterprise in education (Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Quite simply, it is not adequate to define entrepreneurship education on its own. It derives from the practice of entrepreneurship and shows many, complex linkages to the fields of economics, management, strategy, and political science (Kirby 2003). Advanced entrepreneurship education research has, justifiably so, brought about numerous debates related to the introduction and ­on-­going

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

67

teaching of entrepreneurship and related concepts (Alberti et al. 2004; Jones 2011). This includes the manner in which entrepreneurship and its education is delivered and conveyed, whether entrepreneurs are born and made, and the tensions both theoretical and practical (Henry et al. 2005a, b; Shefsky 2011). These particular debates, of course, reflect the difference in opinion and perspective with this new discipline within the business school and beyond, in higher education. Entrepreneurship education attempts to impact and encourage existing behaviours towards potential, entrepreneurial activities in the future (Kolvereid and Moen 1997; Tkachev and Kolvereid 1999). Recent entrepreneurship education programmes are student-oriented, featuring multi-faceted syllabus and engaging methods of delivery, that improve personal and interpersonal skills upon certification (Greene and Rice 2007; Jones and Iredale 2010; Higgins et al. 2013). There is wide acceptance that entrepreneurship, and its process, can be understood, explained, and most importantly, taught (Gilder 1984; Drucker 1985). Putting aside the born or made? debate (see Bolton and Thompson 2004; Shefsky 2011), statistics show that entrepreneurial potential is much greater than the number of people ever actually becoming entrepreneurs (Kent 1990). Research shows that kindergarten pupils have possessed entrepreneurial characteristics, which unfortunately dissipate as they continue in their compulsory education (Kent 1990). A standardised form of education has been regarded as contributing to a negative, convergent academic performance (Kent 1990; Shane 2003). Enabling students to understand the contexts within which entrepreneurship can be successful in their local and regional areas will reinforce the benefits of entrepreneurship education going forward. The formative years of education, such as primary education, is regarded as a key point in a person’s learning, when considering this intersection between understanding entrepreneurialism and the educational environment (Gasse 1985; Filion 1994; Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Most university schools, business or not, which deliver entrepreneurship education, have previously or still currently emphasised the following topics and themes: entrepreneurial education, working with or

68 

R. J. Crammond

understanding current entrepreneurs, and conducting relevant research (Guzmán and Liñán 2005). Entrepreneurship education courses include or are embedded with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Agriculture Entrepreneurship Business and Management Corporate Entrepreneurship Creative Industries Engineering Fashion and Textiles Green Entrepreneurship Information Technology Journalism Management Marketing Media Music/Performance Oil and Gas Management Public Sector Entrepreneurship Rural/Farming/Landscape/Waste Management Rural Entrepreneurship Social Entrepreneurship Sports Development and Coaching Systems/Networking Technological Entrepreneurship Tourism Entrepreneurship Women/Ethnic Entrepreneurship (Adapted from Brockhaus et al. 2001; Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Fetters et al. 2010; Dana 2011)

These forms of education can create a level of citizenship which answers the needs for more social and moral responsibility, preparing students with a required level of knowledge to contribute to local and regional development (Deuchar 2007).

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

69

3.2.2 How? Previously, teachers were advised on how to teach entrepreneurship, but with a lack of valuable and productive resources (Rasmussen and Sørheim 2006). Pihkala et al. (2011) assessed the practicalities of entrepreneurship education, embedded in core curriculum, and what is being facilitated in the classrooms and lecture rooms to understand the most efficient use of teaching methods available. Fact Box 4 The ‘Compendium of Pedagogies for Teaching Entrepreneurship’, published in 2007, lists 44 various and helpful methods of teaching. (Gibb et al. 2007)

Entrepreneurship education is a wide subject, with various, usable methods with which educators can promote in their teaching. As discussed previously, sustained entrepreneurship education research has encouraged a plethora of teaching methods (alternative pedagogies) in the subject, to aid in simulated, practical, and reflective learning: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Case studies (video) Computer aided learning Distance learning E-learning Entrepreneur in class Experiential learning Formal courses Group discussions Group projects Guest presenters Independent/directed learning Induction programmes Learning from critical incidents Learning from others Lectures

70 

• • • • • • •

R. J. Crammond

Private study Reflective practice Role-play Seminars Storytelling Using multimedia Workshops (Adapted from Brockhaus et al. (2001); Hinchliff (2004))

3.2.3 When? Researchers such as Dodd and Hynes (2012), and Jones (2013) detail and illustrate the context of entrepreneurship education and the various factors including educator experience, institutional goals, and personality. Pedagogy is regarded as a means to achieve course objectives and learning outcomes (Fayolle and Gailly 2008). Entrepreneurship education, as regarded by many academics, is suitable for many stages of postand compulsory education (Kent 1990; Brockhaus et  al. 2001). The practical and interactive nature is inclusive of people of all backgrounds, age, and gender. Interestingly, in recent years the concept of heutagogy, being the learner-centric concept, has seen a shift in the debate on when to teach entrepreneurship education (Draycott and Rae 2011; Jones 2011). Objectives are bestowed upon the learner, with the focus being on sharing knowledge rather than recording and delivering knowledge. With relevant and timely delivered education, the role of the teacher becomes more objective and suited to present the needs of students: the individuals in receipt of entrepreneurship education. The teacher or the lecturer must be highly skilled in the particular area to be entrusted with this now higher level of facilitation (Jones 2013). Educators and students regard one another as equals during the learning process, and selected teaching methods are student-centric (Jones 2011, 2013). Ultimately, students accept responsibility for their own learning (Hinchliff 2004). Conversely, pedagogical learning does not occur from the input of the student. Teaching methods are teacher-led, with them accepting and bearing the

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

71

responsibility for the student’s learning (Hinchliff 2004). How entrepreneurship education is taught challenges the mind-set and determines the ambition held within students. It is crucial to provide an understandable and clear progress of entrepreneurship education but allows freedom for entrepreneurs to practice what entrepreneurship education educators preach, convey, or simulate. Similarly, researchers call for a pro-active, practical pedagogy which defines universal understandings of entrepreneurship education but encourages bespoke learning environments at a higher education level (Ruskovaara et  al. 2010; Ruskovaara and Pihkala 2013).

3.3 Assessing Entrepreneurship-Related Programmes University certified entrepreneurship education is now an accepted and valued part of entrepreneurial training (Julien and Marchesnay 1996; Katz 2003). Entrepreneurship education courses have steadily increased in number, popularity, method, and delivery (Jack and Anderson 1999; Katz 2003). Entrepreneurship courses are evolving, and now are concerned with innovation and new ventures as well as disseminating traditional management theory (Shane 2003). Integrated courses are much more focussed than composite models. They, as prescribed by researchers and competent educators in the field, encourage students to be self-motivated to the programmes and dedicated to the course requirements (Anderson and Jack 2008; Jones and Iredale 2010). However, as this education involves nurturing long-lasting entrepreneurial behaviour that students may be reluctant or lacking the confidence to express, the effectiveness of the educator to inspire ingenuity, belief, and innovation is vital (Seikkula-Leino et al. 2009, 2010). Much like creating any resultant venture, entrepreneurship education is a process of realisation and opportunity within itself (Kent 1990; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Entrepreneurship education is not a one-shot situation and must be continued throughout compulsory and post-compulsory education (Rabbior in Kent 1990). Entrepreneurship education programmes

72 

R. J. Crammond

remove barriers that have, in the past, diminished self-confidence and self-esteem. Educators must be aware that the adventurous spirit and willingness to take the initiative make up the essence of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education programmes must be taught by entrepreneurially minded people, and be geared to both inspiring and assisting individuals in realising their potential and aspiration (Fayolle et al. 2005: EC 2008, 2012). Innovative pedagogies in teaching entrepreneurship help develop the field and validate investment from universities for its continued facilitation. When considering entrepreneurship education, it is important to facilitate a well-rounded approach. This can be achieved by acknowledging the many facets of the subject (Fayolle 2005; Fayolle and Sénicourt 2005). Entrepreneurship education is a matter of culture and is dictated by a state of mind. Also, matters of entrepreneurial behaviour, developing opportunity orientation, continued commitment, and dealing with scarce resources make up the ‘genetic’ construct that entrepreneurs appear to present (Fayolle 2005; Fayolle and Sénicourt 2005).

3.4 International Contexts and ‘Best Practice’ Review of effective, experiential and supportive entrepreneurship education now forms entrepreneurship education research in the twenty-first century (Czuchry et al. 2004; Corbett 2005; Mason and Arshed 2013). Pioneering entrepreneurship education programmes within selected universities predominantly include a pracademic element which delivers a direct, personalised, skill-building approach (Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; Blenker et al. 2012). There are encouraging signs across countries that students are productively engaging with entrepreneurship education programmes and related modules. Universities have received positive feedback from students, leading to further enhancement of these programmes, along with the creation of others. This provides experience to the growing number of academics and researchers in important entrepreneurship education learning roles. On-going reporting by entrepreneurship educators set objectives on practical and theoretical means of developing entrepreneurship and

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

73

enterprise within higher education (Volkmann et al. 2009; Lord Young 2014; Mason 2014). Within the United Kingdom, there is a relatively small community of entrepreneurship educators which collaborate in a collegial manner, for the development of this type of education. Many of the smaller, non-governmental organisations are progressive, producing advisory reporting on the development of entrepreneurship education programmes within British universities. These reports provide many useful examples with writers, researchers, and practitioners of the field contributing. As with all best practice reporting, a review of shared ideas, methods, anecdotes, and viewpoints are displayed. From 2010 onwards, there have been multiple reports from Europe, and also the World Economic forum and the OECD, to name a few. These reports intend to address entrepreneurship education and its benefits towards optimal local, regional, and national growth. Furthermore, they characterise entrepreneurship education within universities, defining and conceptualising the field and its related topics. The reports detail numerous delivery techniques and assess particular steps towards this on-going quest for best practice and identify key progression already shown within the field (such as EC 2012, 2015). The reporting ultimately wishes to provide institutional guidance, and progressive, workable frameworks for the implementation of content and assessment. The topics covered by entrepreneurship education reporting include the university context, the benefits towards economic prosperity and society, examples of entrepreneurship education in action, developing strategies for implementation, and the concept of an entrepreneurial university and discovering new talent (Gibb et al. 2013; Mason 2014). Benefits of entrepreneurship education reporting include the consensus that comes with the background work between academics and educators, the opportunity to witness examples of the field in action, the opportunity to externalise ideas, and encourage external funding and governmental initiative/projects. Entrepreneurship education reporting voices the increasing enterprise agenda and promotes self-employment and small business. Entrepreneurship education reporting also endorses creativity and highlights the unique educator and student journey related to enterprise. Attaining best practice, or conceivable best practice of entrepreneurship education, is regarded as achievable through the fruition of

74 

R. J. Crammond

increased collaboration, investment, influence from government and beyond, informed implementation that is universally endorsed, and reference to these ‘fringe’, entrepreneurship education ‘policy pressure’ groups (such as EEUK, NCEE, Youth Enterprise Scotland [YES] and The Scottish Institute of Enterprise [SIE]). Internationally, the European Commission has released a number of valued publications towards increasing entrepreneurship education programmes and promoting entrepreneurial activities within education. These publications have provided numerous international, comparative examples, recovering statistical, anecdotal, and case study information. Recommendations include introductory courses, cross-school, linking enterprise with other disciplines. These reports also outline workable strategies for maintained and improved teaching and research, where centres for entrepreneurship education can be subsequently created. Below are a number of publications released by the European Commission: 2008 ‘Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-­ business studies’ 2012 ‘Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes’ ‘Effects and impact of entrepreneurship programmes in higher education’ 2013 ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan: Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in Europe’ 2015 ‘Entrepreneurship Education: A Road to Success A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures’

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

75

2016 ‘Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe’ ‘EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework’ The competence framework by Bacigalupo et  al. (2016) provides a detailed and inspiring spectrum of competence characteristics which reflect the advancing literature that assists in curriculum content and delivery. Criticisms of intervention from government have not been particularly recounted in research; however, institutional differences and financial restraints can prohibit and restrict entrepreneurship education and resultant institutional change towards entrepreneurialism. Governmental departments such as business, education, trade, and industry have all worked with current academics to seek academic consultation and institutional information regarding the aspirations of universities (Klapper 2004; O’Connor 2013; Williamson et al. 2013; EC 2015; The Scottish Government 2016). It is an obvious assertion that the government should help and assist with regards to entrepreneurial universities and the relatively primitive discipline. Institutional publications which include contributions from academics, who are known within the enterprise and entrepreneurship education field within the United Kingdom, all aim to voice opinions of current academics within existing programmes to put forward progressive ideas for government, and endorse entrepreneurial universities with an innovative vision. The increased popularity and emergence of entrepreneurship education is a product of continuous efforts from academics, practical educators, researchers, and non-governmental influences such as entrepreneurship education special interest groups. These special interest groups have promoted and provided support for entrepreneurship education initiatives, seeking further endorsement from wider, governmental guidance, and infrastructural investment. These groups establish a shared pool of expertise, resources, and experiences from across countries, including the United Kingdom. Direct and specific entrepreneurship education reporting from groups such as the Institute for Small Business and Enterprise (ISBE), Enterprise Educators (EEUK), and the National Centre for Entrepreneurship Education (NCEE) reflect on current

76 

R. J. Crammond

entrepreneurship education practice, envision the future of the field, and mapping and strategising the continued pedagogy and its supportive progression. This advancement can be identified with the increasing intervention and resource (i.e. financial and personnel) stimulus further outlined by, and offered from, governmental committees. With the relatively primitive and subsequently under-developed entrepreneurship education paradigm, yet to be a universal mainstay within all universities, in some form of another, the fundamental mission of these non-­ governmental educational groups is to encourage the application of entrepreneurial learning through practically applied and critical reflective exercises, activities, and assessments. Realistically, this is encouraged through embedding such pedagogy into already existing programmes that can facilitate entrepreneurial ideals and its requisite environments and levels of stakeholder engagement.

3.5 E  mbedding Entrepreneurship Education in Universities During the 1990s, entrepreneurship education was of course still noticeable by its absence within many universities. Nevertheless, entrepreneurship grew steadily to now be part of the mainstream academic curriculum in universities (Guzmán and Liñán 2005). As Stevenson (2000) highlights, entrepreneurial educators have to be more than supporters who endorse the educational approach. The development of relevant theory involves reflecting on generalisations concerning the societies we live in, the economies we work within and help grow, and indicates how entrepreneurs typically act (Fiet 2000b). Vitally, educators should teach the related and surrounding theory to prospective entrepreneurs, to allow them to envisage the consequences of entrepreneurial actions and the commitments made (Fiet 2000b). Even though this bridging between entrepreneurialism in practice and entrepreneurship teaching within universities is currently regarded as still developing, with the nature/nurture and science/art debate continuing in some descriptions, there is widespread consensus that classroom environments need updating in confronting these business realities (Honig 2004

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

77

in Peltier and Scovotti 2010). Facilitating the innovative ideology that is entrepreneurship education has evidently produced many topics for discussion and debate. The notion of not only inspiring enterprising individuals, but then nurturing entrepreneurial talent is now the norm during the creation of degree programmes either within or outwith the business school. Increasingly focussed research in entrepreneurship education, undertaken since the latter part of the twentieth century, acknowledges a number of questions fundamental to successful and supportive implementation: How can a university implement valued entrepreneurship or enterprising education? Would this programme originate from the business school? Does it have to be completely practical? Who can suitably deliver it? Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education, as this book has said before, encourages new and exciting ideas, products, and services to enter the market and benefit or enrich society (Baron 2002; Needle 2004; Burns 2011). Increasing support for entrepreneurship education encourages new, entrepreneurial talent, conceptualises the field for research and teaching, and provides employment solutions, creating economic and business growth (Brockhaus et  al. 2001; Minniti 2005; Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Fayolle 2007; Hamidi et al. 2008; Lourenço et al. 2012). Case Study II: Preparing for the Classroom Environment Over the years, as an academic, the summertime for me is partly a period of reflection—as well as also being a time to have a break and recharge the batteries! Around this time, I want to plan for the year ahead, as all teaching and research staff do. Modules and programmes are sometimes refreshed or rewritten in places. This involves many conversations and critical discussions surrounding course development and relevancy. Whenever I am writing a new, or developing an existing module, I consider the following: • The Module Aim: what is the purpose of this course, and what is its place within the programme? • Learning Outcomes: what milestones should the students aim to reach over the course of the module? • Content: which relevant themes and topics should be addressed? • Delivery: what should the classroom dynamic be like? • Assessment: what are the best method(s) that would measure the student’s knowledge, understanding, and application of the information and theoretical content included within the module?

78 

R. J. Crammond

The above considerations have assisted me in my modules in leadership, management, enterprise, business research, and human resource management to name a few. As mentioned above, the classroom dynamic is central in facilitating any form of entrepreneurship education. The setting, simply in terms of seating arrangements and group set-ups for tutorial and workshop activities, are initially important. This can be encouraged by the focus or vision set by the university, promoting greater staff and student engagement. Of course, different styles of teaching and approach affect this dynamic. An example of these different styles includes the distinction between the usual, academic sessions, and summer school programmes. The usual, academic sessions (trimesters) before and after the winter holidays follow a typically rigid, programmatic approach in my experience. Courses and sessions are within a defined suite of modules and programmes. This creates particular boundaries, where occasionally teaching teams and approaches can be entrenched over a number of years. Of course, this can present itself with positive and negative outcomes. Summer school sessions are more practical, by nature. In my experience, tutorials and workshops are more like educational events. These are more energised and student-centric, as international students from other countries enthusiastically visit and learn from the new institution, over a period of a few weeks. Now, consider the following: Q1) What are the three main objectives/features for an effective, enterprising classroom environment? Q2) Select a few from the list below, justifying where they could be successfully utilised within the enterprising, classroom environment: Business Planning Presentation Role Playing Discussing and Debating Reflective Writing Skills Portfolio

3.6 Conceptualising Entrepreneurialism: The Educational Context The many internal factors and external forces, which affect the entrepreneurial university, will undoubtedly impact the programmes that they are offering, as well as the teaching personnel, approaches, and institutional

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

79

beliefs and values held. The following model illustrates these factors, and likely impacts, as universities strive to become more entrepreneurial through their strategies, and in their teaching and research activities (Fig. 3.1). What Does This Mean? Moving on from Fig. 2.1, this model displays the dichotomy of enterprise and entrepreneurship education, for students and educators alike. As discussed numerous times throughout this book, the teaching of entrepreneurship involves many forms related to that of enterprising behaviour, small business creation, and the development of societally-­ beneficial ideas and activities. This concept displays this distinct dichotomy now witnessed and described, with respect to the push and pull factors which surround the institution. Primarily, as discussed previously, market need and uncertainty amongst industries leads university and other educational institutions to document the problems and pose potential solutions. The response to this, by universities, is the introduction or redevelopment of purposive courses, programmes, and research projects. These wish to reflect the expectations of industry and society, as well as make advancing, intellectual, and investigative impacts. Secondly, ideas and innovative adoption. For universities, as well as industry, are involved in fierce competition with rivals. Entrepreneurship education allows universities to put into practice what they preach. These practices involve taught education, collaborative research, and consultative activities on behalf of the institution. Ideas here also reflect the market needs and student aspiration alluded to in the first point. Thirdly, the ambition of students and industries, through pull factors and competition, drive universities to be more enterprising, be more inventive, and be more socially responsible. With these in mind, along with reflecting on relevant information, universities can appropriately map their courses, programmes, against hopeful and enterprising activity. It is at this point, that they consider the benefits of the many different forms of enterprising and entrepreneurship education. Both have different emphases, with respect to the student

Fig. 3.1  Conceptualising entrepreneurialism: the educational context

80  R. J. Crammond

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

81

experience and methods of delivery used. Nevertheless, these forms result in valuable personal, interpersonal, professional, and crucially, enterprising skill sets being attained and developed. What Are the Practical Implications? This model, again, allows educators and students to appreciate new and utilised definitional understandings of enterprise and entrepreneurship, within the university context. Educators can also appreciate the benefits of these forms, towards course outlines and learning outcomes. Based upon these definitive differences in terminology, connotations and relevant themes and topics can be realised. This contextual illustration can be linked to some of the practical worksheets enclosed within the appendix of this book, towards classroom activity. These include, but are not necessarily restricted to, appendices B and C.

3.7 Conclusion International issues, progressive educational perspectives, entrepreneurial experiences, and academic argument have all shaped the progression of entrepreneurship education teaching for some time (Carland et al. 1984; Kent 1990; Brockhaus et al. 2001; Fayolle 2010; EC 2015). This chapter has alerted educators, researchers, and institutions in general of the myriad of techniques through which entrepreneurship education can be delivered and supported. Empirical research has listed and explained the numerous, exciting, and productive teaching methods which go towards forming the growing number of entrepreneurship education programmes, globally (Charney and Libecap 2002; Galloway et al. 2005; Fayolle et al. 2006; Matlay 2008). Improving methods of entrepreneurship education delivery and support are endorsed (Volkmann et al. 2009; Williamson et al. 2013) and facilitated globally (e.g. NCEE’s compendium of teaching approaches). As per Fig. 1.1, this chapter visits the following questions: Q1. I n being relevant, productive, and valuable, what does entrepreneurship education really mean?

82 

R. J. Crammond

Author’s Response In practice, universities are now responding to the nature of business and entrepreneurialism. However, within a university’s own context, how they design and deliver entrepreneurship education can differ—and rightly so! In being productive and valuable, this form of education must ‘answer the call’ from students: what is important to our students? What real change can occur, for the better, starting from within our own institution? When universities can answer these types of questions, relevant education must follow. Q2. W  hat notable progressions, concerning entrepreneurship education, have already been witnessed? Author’s Response As this chapter has outlined and discussed, many definitions, conceptual understandings, and academic viewpoints have surrounded the origins and progression of both entrepreneurship, and more latterly, entrepreneurship education. A categorisation and refinement of what this all means for the classroom and students has now been witnessed. Today, there is now greater concentration on the many practical forms that this education can take, as well as measuring and assessing impact and legacy building. This shall provide a meaningful pathway towards contextual advancement for educators, researchers, universities, and last but not least students. The next chapter displays the wider network, which involves stakeholders and related businesses and educational bodies, surrounding universities: the desired, industrial ecosystem.

References Acs, Z. J. (2007) ‘How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?’ American Institute for Economic Research: Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization. Vol.1(1), pp. 97–107. Alberti, F., Sciascia, S. and Poli, A. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate’. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy. (Vol. 4, No. 7).

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

83

Aldrich, H. E. (2012) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship’. Research Policy. Vol.41, pp. 1240–1248. Anderson, A. R. and Jack, S. L. (1999) ‘Teaching the entrepreneurial art’. In: D. S. EVANS, ed. International Dimensions of Teaching Entrepreneurship. Paris: ESCEM. pp. 84–105. Anderson, A. R. and Jack, S. L. (2008) ‘Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional artisan?’ Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 259–273. Anderson, A.  R. and Starnawska, M. (2008) ‘Research practices in entrepreneurship: Problems of definition, description and meaning’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Vol.9(4), pp. 221–230. Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y. and Van den Brande, G. (2016) EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Baron, R. A. (2002) ‘OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer conceptual links’. Research in Organisational Behaviour. Vol.24, pp. 225–269. Beresford, R. and Beresford, K. (2010) ‘The role of networks in supporting grassroots good practice in enterprise education’. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. Vol.15(3), pp. 275–288. Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S.  H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., and Thrane, C. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(6), pp. 417–430. Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2004) Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Brockhaus, R. H. (1993) ‘Entrepreneurship education: A research agenda’. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.1, p. 913. Brockhaus, R.  H., Hills, G.  E., Klandt, H. and Welsch, H.  P. (Eds.) (2001) Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Buchanan, D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bygrave, W.D. (1989) ‘The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): a philosophical look at its research methodologies’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.14(1), pp. 7–26. Callaghan, J. (1976) Speech at Ruskin College. Oxford, Vol.18, pp. 1–72.

84 

R. J. Crammond

Carland, J.  W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.  R. and Carland, J.  A. C. (1984) ‘Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: a conceptualisation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.9(2), pp. 354–359. Charney, A. H. and Libecap, G. D. (2002) ‘The contribution of entrepreneurship education: An analysis of the Berger program’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.1(3), pp. 385–418. Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V.L. (1986) ‘Entrepreneurship research: directions and methods’. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. pp. 333–365. Cooper, S., Bottomley, C. and Gordon, J. (2004) ‘Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.18(1), pp. 11–22. Corbett, A. (2005) ‘Universities and the Europe of knowledge: ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurship in European Community higher education policy, 1955–2005’. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Czuchry, A., Yasin, M. and Gonzales, M. (2004) ‘Effective entrepreneurial education: a framework for innovation and implementation’. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.7(1), pp. 39–56. Daft, R.  L. (2011) The New Era of Management. International ed. Ohio: Thomson South-Western. Dana, L.  P. (2011) World Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dana, L.  P., Welpe, I.  M., Han, M., Ratten. V. (2008) (eds.) Handbook of Research on European Business and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Theory of Internationalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elger Publishing. Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998) ‘Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs’. The Learning Organisation. Vol.5(3), pp. 144–155. Deuchar, R. (2007) Enterprise and Learning: Harmonising Competing Educational Agendas. Oakhill: Trentham Books Limited. Dew, N. and Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007) ‘Innovations, stakeholders and entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol.74(3), pp. 267–283. Dodd, S.D. and Hynes, B.C. (2012) ‘The impact of regional entrepreneurial contexts upon enterprise education’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.24(9–10), pp. 741–766. Down, S. and Warren, L. (2008) ‘Constructing narratives of enterprise: clichés and entrepreneurial self-identity’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.14(1), pp. 4–23. Draycott, M. and Rae, D. (2011) ‘Enterprise education in schools and the role of competency frameworks’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 127–145.

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

85

Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row. European Commission (2008) Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies. Final Report of the Expert Group. Enterprise and Industry, March 2008. European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012. European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fayolle, A. (2000) ‘Exploratory study to assess the effects of entrepreneurship programs on French student entrepreneurial behaviours’. Journal of Enterprising Culture. Vol.8(2), pp. 169–184. Fayolle, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’ International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol.2(1), pp. 89–98. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2007) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: A general perspective. (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2010) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2008) ‘From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.32(7), pp. 569–593. Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) (Eds.) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A. and Sénicourt, P. (2005) ‘Peut-on former des entrepreneurs?’ L’Expansion Management Review. Vol.1, pp. 34–41. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) ‘Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.30(9), pp. 701–720. Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P. and Ulijn, J. M. (Eds.) (2005) Entrepreneurship research in Europe: outcomes and perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fetters, M., Greene, P. G. and Rice, M. P. (Eds.). (2010) The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fiet, J. O. (2000a) ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.16(1), pp. 1–24. Fiet, J. O. (2000b) ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.16(2), pp. 101–117.

86 

R. J. Crammond

Filion, L.J. (1994) ‘Ten steps to entrepreneurial teaching’. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Vol.11(3), pp. 68–78. Fleming, P. (1994) ‘The role of structured interventions in shaping graduate entrepreneurship’. Irish Journal of Management. Vol.15, p. 146. Galloway, L., Anderson, M., Brown, W. and Whittam, G. (2005) The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in HE. Report for Business Education Support Team, May. Gasse, Y. (1985) ‘A strategy for the promotion and identification of potential entrepreneurs at the secondary school level’. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship. pp. 538–559. Gibb, A., Hannon, P., Price, A. and Robertson, I. (2007) ‘A compendium of pedagogies for teaching entrepreneurship’. [Online], International Entrepreneurship Education Programme, http://ieeponline.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/11/Wider-reading-draft-Ped-Note-compendium.pdf. [Accessed: 5 October 2015] Gibb, A., Haskins, G. and Robertson, I. (2013) ‘Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions’. In Universities in Change (pp. 9–45). New York: Springer. Gilder, G. (1984) The Spirit of Enterprise. New York: Simon and Schuster. Gimmon, E. (2014) ‘Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.56(8/9), pp. 814–825. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997) ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.15(3), pp. 56–77. Greene, P. G., and Rice, M. P. (Eds.) (2007) Entrepreneurship Education. (Vol. 9). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Guzmán, J. and Liñán, F. (2005) ‘Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Education: A US-Europe Comparison’. Jean Monnet European Studies Centre Universidad Antonio de Nebrija. Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K. and Berglund, H. (2008) ‘Creativity in entrepreneurship education’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 304–320. Hannon, P. (2007) ‘Enterprise for all? The fragility of enterprise provision across England’s HEIs’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.14(2), pp. 183–210. Harrison, R. T. and Leitch, C. M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial learning: researching the interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.29(4), pp. 351–371.

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

87

Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006) ‘An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible?’ Journal of Management Development. Vol.25(1), pp. 80–94. Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005a) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I’. Education and Training. Vol.47(2), pp. 98–111. Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005b) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II’. Education and Training. Vol.47(3), pp. 158–169. Higgins, D., Smith, K. and Mirza, M. (2013) ‘Entrepreneurial education: reflexive approaches to entrepreneurial learning in practice’. Journal of Entrepreneurship. Vol.22(2), pp. 135–160. Hinchliff, S. (2004) The Practitioner as Teacher. United Kingdom: Elsevier Health Sciences. Honig, B. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-­ based business planning’. Academy of Management Learning and Education. Vol.3(3), pp. 258–273. Hornaday, J.A. and Tieken, N.B. (1983) ‘Capturing twenty-one heffalumps’. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. 2ª ed. Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College, pp. 23–50. Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004) ‘What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries’. Education and Training. Vol.46(1), pp. 11–23. Ireland, R.D. and Van Auken, P.M. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship and small business research: An historical typology and directions for future research’. American Journal of Small Business. Vol.11(4), pp. 9–20. Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A. R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.5(3), pp. 110–125. Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2010) ‘Enterprise education as pedagogy’. Education and Training. Vol.52(1), pp. 7–19. Jones, C. (2011) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Jones, C. (2013) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz, A. (2012) ‘Enterprise education: for all, or just some?’ Education and Training. Vol.54(8/9), pp. 813–824. Julien, P.A. and Marchesnay, M. (1996) L’Entrepreuneriat. Economica.

88 

R. J. Crammond

Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(2), pp. 283–300. Kent, C.  A. (Ed.). (1990) Entrepreneurship Education: Current Developments, Future Directions. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Kirby, D.  A. (2003) Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kirchhoff, B.A. and Phillips, B.D. (1988) ‘The effect of firm formation and growth on job creation in the United States’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.3(4), pp. 261–272. Klandt, H. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship education and research in German-­ speaking Europe’. Academy of Management Learning and Education. Vol.3(3), pp. 293–301. Klapper, R. (2004) ‘Government goals and entrepreneurship education  – An investigation at a Grande Ecole in France’. Education and Training. Vol.46(3), pp. 127–137. Kollermeier, T. (1992) ‘Entrepreneurship in an Economy in Transition: Perspectives of the Situation in the GDR’. International Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Research. Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 37–57. Kolvereid, L. (1996) ‘Prediction of employment status choice intentions’. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. Vol.21(1), pp. 47–58. Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.21(4), pp. 154–160. Kuratko, D. F. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century’. White Paper. US Association of Small Business Education. Kuratko, D. F. (2005) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.29(5), pp. 577–598. Laukkanen, M. (2000) ‘Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.12(1), pp. 25–47. Livesay, H.H. (1982) ‘Entrepreneurial history’. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Lord Young (2014) Enterprise for All: The Relevance of Enterprise in Education. June, 2014. Lourenço, F., Jones, O. and Jayawarna, D. (2012) ‘Promoting sustainable development: The role of entrepreneurship education’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.31(8), pp. 841–865.

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

89

Lourenço, F., Taylor, T. G. and Taylor, D. W. (2013). ‘Integrating ‘education for entrepreneurship’ in multiple faculties in “half-the-time” to enhance graduate entrepreneurship’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.20(3), pp. 503–525. Maritz, A. and Brown, C. R. (2013) ‘Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education programs’. Education and Training. Vol.55(3), pp. 234–252. Mason, C. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial finance in a regional economy’. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Vol.12(3), pp. 167–172. Mason, C. (2014) Creating Entrepreneurial Campuses: A report for Scotland. Discussion Paper. Quality Assurance Agency Scotland, Edinburgh. Mason, C. and Arshed, N. (2013) ‘Teaching entrepreneurship to university students through experiential learning: A case study’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.27(6), pp. 449–463. Matlay, H. (2005a) ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and does it matter?’ Education and Training. Vol.47(8/9), pp. 665–677. Matlay, H. (2005b) ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 627–643. Matlay, H. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(5). Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 382–396. Matlay, H. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.16(2), pp. 355–368. Matlay, H. (2010) ‘Introduction: contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4). Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182. Matlay, H. and Hussain, J. (2012) ‘The future of entrepreneurship education in the UK’s ‘Big Society’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(6), pp. 521–530. McMullan, W. and Long, W.  A. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the nineties’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.2(3), pp. 261–275

90 

R. J. Crammond

Minniti, M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship and network externalities’. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization. Vol.57(1), pp. 1–27. Mueller, S. (2011) ‘Increasing entrepreneurial intention: effective entrepreneurship course characteristics’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol.13(1), pp. 55–74. Needle, D. (2004) Business in Context: An Introduction to Business And its Environment. 4th ed. Cengage Learning EMEA. O’Connor, A. (2013) ‘A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.28, pp. 546–563. Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R.  K. and Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial intention as developmental outcome’. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Vol.77(1), pp. 63–72. Peltier, J.  W. and Scovotti, C. (2010) ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial marketing education: the student perspective’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4), pp. 514–536. Perryman, M. (1982) ‘Commentary on research in the field of entrepreneurship’. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Peterman, N. E. and Kennedy, J. (2003) ‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. Vol.28(2), pp. 129–144. Pihkala, T., Ruskovaara, E., Seikkula-Leino, J. and Rytkölä, T. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education-what is really happening in class rooms?’ Yrittäjyyskasvatuspäivät. Vol.10(6/7). Lappeenranta. ISBN 978-952-265139-6. Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurship Education A Systematic Review of the Evidence’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.25(5), pp. 479–510. Rae, D. (2004) ‘Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.11(2), pp. 195–202. Rae, D. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(3), pp. 323–335. Rasmussen, E. A. and Sørheim, R. (2006) ‘Action-based entrepreneurship education’. Technovation. Vol.26(2), pp. 185–194. Ronstadt, R. (1984) Entrepreneurship: Text, cases and notes. London: Lord Publications.

3  Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts… 

91

Ruskovaara, E. and Pihkala, T. (2013) ‘Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: classroom practices’. Education and Training. Vol.55(2), pp. 204–216. Ruskovaara, E., Pihkala, T., Rytkölä, T. and Seikkula-Leino, J. (2010) ‘Studying Teachers’ Teaching Methods and Working Approaches in Entrepreneurship Education’. In Proceedings of the 7th ESU–European University Network on Entrepreneurship Conference (pp. 1–18). Seikkula-Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikavalko, M., Mattila, J. and Rytkola, T. (2010) ‘Promoting entrepreneurship education: the role of the teacher?’ Education and Training. Vol.52(2), pp. 117–127. Seikkula-Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikävalko, M., Mattila, J. and Rytkölä, T. (2009) ‘Teachers realizing entrepreneurship education – their practices and reflections’. In ESU Conference, Benevento. September, pp. 8–13. Shane, S.  A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shefsky, L. (2011) Entrepreneurs are Made not Born. London: McGraw Hill Professional. Solomon, G.  T. (1988) ‘Small Business Management and Entrepreneurial Education in America: A National Questionnaire Overview’. Journal of Private Enterprise. November: pp. 109–118. Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002) ‘The State of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States: A Nationwide Questionnaire and Analysis’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.1(1), pp. 65–86. Solomon, G.  T., Weaver, K.  M. and Fernald, L.W., Jr. (1994) ‘Pedagogical Methods of Teaching Entrepreneurship: An Historical Perspective’. Gaming and Simulation. Vol.25(3), pp. 338–253. Stevenson, H. H. (2000) ‘Why entrepreneurship has won!’ Coleman White Paper (USASBE National Conference, February 2000). The Scottish Government. (2016) Enterprise and Skills Review: A Call for Evidence. July 2016. Timmons, J.A. (1985) New Venture Creation. London: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999) ‘Self-employment intentions among Russian students’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.11(3), pp. 269–280. Vesper, K. H. and Gartner, W. B. (1997) ‘Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.12(5), pp. 403–421. Vesper, K.H. (1980) Entrepreneurship Education. Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies. Wellesley, MA.

92 

R. J. Crammond

Vesper, K.H. and McMullan, W.E. (1988) ‘Entrepreneurship education: from courses to degrees’. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. Vol.13(1), pp. 7–14. Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Marlotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009) Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative. Williamson, N., Beadle, S. and Charalambous, S. (2013) ‘Enterprise education impact in higher education and further education’. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Final report. London: DBIS. Wortman, M.S. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field’. Journal of Management. Vol.13(2), pp. 259–279. Zeithaml, C.  P. and Rice, G.  H. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship Small Business Education in American Universities’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.25(1), pp. 44–50.

4 Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems

Institutions that constrain the creative mind within its four walls are merely that. Robert James Crammond

4.1 Introduction Institutions should be more than its four walls. We are now 20 years into the twenty-first century. Higher education institutions are now, in favourable market settings, more equipped, resourced, and resilient in dealing with external events and factors. For entrepreneurship education, this aspect of confronting and adapting is also central, as with affirming our understandings of what, how, and when to teach enterprise and entrepreneurship. In part-response to the four critical aspects noted in this book’s preface, universities who network, provide, and mentor for their staff and students enable this ultimate destination of a built and sustainable ecosystem. With this, a strong underbelly of enterprise nurtures activity and positively contributes to the student journey. The experience of students is crucial towards the longer-term success of the university, whether it is

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_4

93

94 

R. J. Crammond

new or old. Regrettably, or not, higher education is part of a market place, presenting an onus and responsibility on universities to promote specialisms and ‘unique selling points’. In addition to this, avoiding repetition is also key for universities. This is overall, but specifically concerning their course offering. In the same vein as Druckerian economics, he stated that this evolution of entrepreneurial organisations, and the growth of intrapreneurship and creative-minded multinationals, leads to universities which are more successful and embrace this broadened mind-set. They adapt to new environments and reshape their institutions to meet demands. Education is a subjective, natural, people-centric, and societally driven process. With this in mind, universities engage in wider networks to capture ideas and embrace best practice. This aims to inspire students in improving their own futures. This chapter introduces the concept of the Entrepreneurial University, which invites an ecosystem to be established and thrive. Additionally, the demands for such an ecosystem are outlined, along with describing the connection between higher education and industry, in the twentyfirst century. Many examples of governmental and related publications are also acknowledged. The chapter closes with a case study, reflecting on classroom experiences, and comments on building entrepreneurial legacies.

4.2 The Enterprising University To attain the label of the Entrepreneurial University is now a common and sought after goal amongst education and university management. It holds prestige and boldness, which is desired by many. However, in reality, what does it mean? How does an institution achieve this status? In a now highly competitive university market, where institutions wish to attract conscientious students, a certain uniqueness from an institution must be created. The numerous ways in which institutions can be seen to promote student employability and enhance the student experience with transferable, real-world activities are required. This prevailing enterprise agenda is an ever-growing, formally explicit or informal objective amongst figures

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

95

at the top of the higher education hierarchy. Most notably, during economic uncertainty, local and national governments have intervened to highlight, through policy, the benefit of entrepreneurialism, small business, or aspects of new venture creation. The changing of governments however brings new and renewed publications, considering political stances to capitalism and private ownership, concerning the issue of being enterprising and educating our students to be entrepreneurial. The question thus arises as to how higher education management and educators respond, adapt, and embed useful entrepreneurship education.

4.2.1 What Is an Entrepreneurial University? It is now appreciated, and commonplace, that forms of entrepreneurship education is, or should be, widely acknowledged in varied topicality and suitably facilitated within universities (Gibb and Hannon 2006; Anderson and Jack 2008). Examples of university spin-offs, for example, are valuable as they convert institutionally derived inventions and strategic innovations, which are created and developed for the marketplace from this institutionally funded research. Therefore, these projects are sometimes different from typical, university-based research outputs, as more entrepreneurial endeavours. With potential for this type of activity, educators must consider a more realistic balance between theoretical elements and practical approaches (Jack and Anderson 1999). This tension in pedagogy affects the nature, operations, and overall perception of universities, emerging or more established. Additionally, in order to cater for these students, strides should be taken to understand their goals and preferred graduate destinations, and whether advice concerning practical activities surrounding and for business start-ups and entrepreneurialism would be advantageous (Jack and Anderson 1999; Houston and Mulholland 2003). A notable share of entrepreneurship education research concerns the student journey and impact of the topic; therefore, evidence exists of its importance and relevancy (Gorman et al. 1997; Young 1997; Peterman and Kennedy 2003). Research within compulsory education, utilising higher educational methods, could be studied in greater depth in promoting developmental mind-sets amongst pupils and teenagers (Peterman

96 

R. J. Crammond

and Kennedy 2003). Business and management faculties, and departments, have this powerful influence on what is key information and relevant content for the classroom, and with how the classroom environment should appropriately facilitate the respective course (Fayolle 2010; Jones 2010). Higher education institutions are widely regarded by many national, educational bodies, and international governments as a key hub and notable starting point for ambitious students and aspiring entrepreneurs to think of, and develop, both innovative and entrepreneurial ideas (Matlay 2010). Within the modern environment, students now appreciate that to make a unique impact, they have to be able to display critical, entrepreneurial competences, and be able to exercise innovative behaviour within the market. Also, in increasing this exposure, entrepreneurship education must not be restricted in topicality and delivery, within a given school or department within the institution. Entrepreneurship education within the United Kingdom, for example, is now considered to have been advancing well, with its increasing emergence, already contributing significantly to the national economy (Matlay 2009). Educators and university support staff now address this need for institutions who wish to facilitate entrepreneurship education by scrutinising the institution’s purpose, review existing strategies of teaching and learning, and justify methods of delivering the curriculum in aligning with modern business operations and best practices (Jones 2010; O’Connor 2013). Novel and mutual partnerships between organisations and new enterprises are suggested as a key product of this mechanism. This mechanism is now considered valuable towards the new entrepreneur or growing small business, in resolving many micro- and macro-­ economic issues and challenges (Matlay 2005). Therefore, there should be a greater urgency for universities to accept the challenge and introduce such education, but with sustained and strong links with industry and with credible, government endorsement (Mason 2010; Fayolle 2010). Turker and Selcuk (2009), for example, investigated how many considerations from the educational context affected a student’s intention and potential to contribute to economic and social development. They noted that substantial and continued resource and financial investment into such entrepreneurial programmes as evident and contributory, as

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

97

­ niversities affect graduate destination and career preference (Turker and u Selcuk 2009). In advancing towards this attractive enterprise agenda, and displaying contemporary characteristics of an entrepreneurial university, institutions must lateralise their thinking concerning applicable forms of entrepreneurship education that are desired across multiple, taught disciplines. Awareness of local teaching, within both compulsory and post-­compulsory education, can also benefit universities, as their aims and values become more closely aligned to schools, colleges, councils, and local businesses.

4.3 Striving Towards the Entrepreneurial University Universities of today now aim to strategically, and consistently, present themselves as entrepreneurial institutions for the future. This is through developing vibrant programmes, encouraging influential researchers and educators in the field, and voicing enduring rhetoric which endorses entrepreneurship education (Burns 2011; Nelles and Vorley 2010a, b, 2011). This now notable evolution of universities introduces and entrenches this Third Mission of universities, as detailed in recent literature. This pedagogical and operational transition from traditional teaching and research activities to commercial engagement questions universities and what their agenda is towards addressing and promoting entrepreneurship and facets of small business creation (Mars 2007; Benneworth and Osborne 2015). Some entrepreneurial universities can be unfortunately over-reliant on particular individuals, who consistently champion the educational, and overall societal, need for entrepreneurship education and university-based activities (Nelles and Vorley 2010a, b; Kirby et al. 2011). In terms of this notion of an entrepreneurial university, related reporting has addressed how such an institution can be created (Gibb et al. 2013; Mason 2014). Addressing this involves a degree of cultural awareness, timely strategical planning, and endorsed acquisition of the requisite resources towards such change. An institutional review of their specialisms, their way of

98 

R. J. Crammond

teaching and disseminating researched and taught information, and their institutional reach to local and national communities are all factors towards this remodelling of a university. Many institutions, moving towards an entrepreneurial architecture, replicate notable trendsetters of this now fashionable and highly marketing form of creative, experiential, and reflective education. Components of an entrepreneurial university include, as detailed by Nelles and Vorley’s advancing model of entrepreneurial activity: structures, systems, strategies, leadership, and culture (Nelles and Vorley 2010a, b, 2011). The Clark (1998) report, concerning entrepreneurial activity at Strathclyde University, indicated this transition towards an entrepreneurial university and conventions now echoing entrepreneurial activity. Earlier studies, and now more recent entrepreneurial activity research, has been criticised for their lack of subjectivity, with few perspectives being acknowledged (Deem 2001; Finlay 2004). A variety of clashing cultures and institutional tensions between levels of university staff are occasionally not noticed, which affect the true nature and impact of changing universities being documented (Deem 2001). Research, expectantly, wishes to focus on the positive elements which contribute to the formation of an entrepreneurial university. However, research occasionally fails to highlight how this can be sustained (Colyvas and Powell 2007). It is therefore considered unclear as to which particular activities from a university can be considered as truly entrepreneurial (Deem and Johnson 2003; Tuunainen 2005; Philpott et  al. 2011). According to Armbruster (2008), this idea of an entrepreneurial university is still relatively ambiguous and instigates debate upon its agreed interpretation. Relationships between education, business, and government influence this advancing concept of the entrepreneurial university, as it affects many internal and external stakeholders of the university. Entrepreneurship and small business creation is of course encouraged and supported at university as a post-certification option. However, differing levels of expertise fragments the teaching and research offering. However, building and sustaining an entrepreneurial university arguably creates rigidity, and numerous burdens within the internal environment: to curate, to teach, to support, to lead, and to instigate valuable and entrepreneurial change in a competing, commercial higher ­education

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

99

sector. Previously, the potential and premise of entrepreneurship education is regularly outlined by these relative visionaries, yet not held with promise by a majority. Of course, some institutions are evidently better than others, with an arguable correlation between student success, monetary investment, and entrepreneurship education-related research exploits resulting in more evident and sustained delivery and support. In the case of Scotland, it is widely reported by governmental and educational departments that Scotland must embrace creative, innovative, and habitual-entrepreneurship activity (Levie 2015, 2016, 2017; National Statistics 2017). These publications statistically document and call for systematic and widespread change, both within education and across industry. This is further encouraged by the highly active start-up rates within the country. Numerous reporting in Scotland and the United Kingdom, for example, working alongside government departments, have all sought to map a prescribed route forward (McKeown et al. 2006; Gibb et al. 2007; Mason 2014). Of course, in a country like Scotland, with many institutions vying for student interest, it is difficult for all to compete in increasing numbers of entrepreneurship education programmes and entrepreneurial activity. Financial and personnel restrictions all affect movements towards an entrepreneurial institution. It is therefore incumbent on institutions to seek out what are their unique specialisms, and what can be done from them as a multi-disciplinarian institution.

4.3.1 The Demands for an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem As aforementioned, demands from students, government, and immediate regions all display a need or desire for an entrepreneurial university (Clark 1998; Fetters et al. 2010; Fayolle and Redford 2014). The benefits of entrepreneurship are widely voiced through academic and governmental reporting, endorsing related collaboration, venture creation, spin-offs, and knowledge transfer activities seen within universities (EC 2012, 2015). Increased funding has been noted in recent years towards entrepreneurialism and innovation (The Scottish Government 2016). Institutions are now seeking to brand and market their universities and

100 

R. J. Crammond

colleges as entrepreneurial to attract students into enrolling with them, and realising their ambitions within an educational, vocational, and progressive environment (Gibb et al. 2009; Neck and Greene 2011; Fayolle and Redford 2014; McAdam et al. 2016). As is the case with many taught disciplines however, not all universities can suitably provide such innovative programmes or entrepreneurial opportunities to a high level witnessed from other institutions. There are implications towards cost and personnel, as well as a requirement to shift the institutional culture towards patterns of entrepreneurial behaviour (Burns 2011; Gibb et al. 2013). Traditionally, a wide debate has taken place with universities being accused of denigrating vocational modes or approaches of learning, as they wish to definitively distinguish between education and more college-like, workplace developmental courses (Hager and Hyland 2003). Rothaermel et al. (2007) assert that it is therefore difficult to witness and determine patterns without establishing comparable research between education and industry examples. Fact Box 5 Past and present leaders within the United Kingdom, such as Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon, have regarded entrepreneurialism as serving the public, and something which should be encouraged by all, in improving society.

Dynamic activities and seasoned, entrepreneurial practices are therefore reliant on this process of linking national initiatives, business need, and the many objectives stipulated from universities. This then encourages an advancement of relevant roles, responsibilities, and prevailing personalities in both the delivery and support of entrepreneurship education.

4.4 The Institutional and Industry Nexus In industry-specific, technologically driven, and brand-competitive markets, both regional small businesses and national organisations alike require new, creative-minded, and imaginative personnel from local

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

101

­ niversities to help achieve their enterprising aims (see Dew and Sarasvathy u 2007; Gibb et al. 2013; Matlay 2011). The fundamental spirit of facilitating entrepreneurship activity within university involves charting different objectives for the educational environment and establishing longstanding, working relationships between the university and local, national, and international businesses (McAdam et al. 2016). Therefore, possessing an awareness of the need to identify and engage with a number of key stakeholders, attributable to entrepreneurship education, is crucial to this notion. This shall build these working relationships in assisting the entrepreneurial learning, and personal and professional development of students (Amaral and Magalhaes 2002; Jones and English 2004; Jones 2011, 2013). This has been occasionally witnessed across many institutions, as recounted during empirical investigations. University activities including profitable knowledge transfer partnerships and university-wide consultancy initiatives maintain valued, enterprising relationships (Bicknell et al. 2010; Landström et al. 2012). The advent of this improved entrepreneurship education offering globally, in creation and implementation, has encouraged creative and innovative practices at all levels. This has radiated to local businesses and interested parties. The involvement and impact of local business and governmental organisations has been an evident factor to the internal responsibilities of universities. This responsibility engages staff within the higher education context across all departments. Examples of meeting this responsibility include the maintained partnerships now seen, where consultancy and governmental individuals are included within the curriculum and delivery process (at content and assessment stages), and the establishment of working, campus-based innovation hubs and accelerator spaces which host relevant events and workshops throughout the academic year. Fact Box 6 In 2019, there are over 180 recognised business accelerators in the United Kingdom for start-ups and entrepreneurs. (Entrepreneur Handbook 2019)

102 

R. J. Crammond

These types of emerging activities within universities encourage new, local businesses, occasionally starting from the ideas of students, to address economic, societal, political, and technological issues. Subsidiary businesses within the immediate vicinity witness secondary, knock-on benefits of such schemes and long-term projects.

4.5 Government Intervention and Entrepreneurship Education Universities endure great pressures from governmental departments to devise and implement relatable and contemporary entrepreneurship education. It can be that a given institution will not see that its ethos and approach to higher education matches that of the principles and objectives of entrepreneurship education. For example, older, more established institutions may wish for their focus to be on educating students for professional qualifications and/or careers. A fundamental consideration for governments, concerning public spending, industry incentives, and on-going budget forecasting, is that of the entrepreneur and its salient influence on society (Gibb 1987, 1993; Casson 2003, 2005; Acs 2007; Burns 2011; Matlay and Hussain 2012). The link between the entrepreneur and small business is more clearly visible and instrumental on a country’s economic and social fortunes (Burns 2011). A free market economy is celebrated by politicians in power, stated as a means to work and trade out of financial declines. The role and general activities of an entrepreneur can sometimes wrongly be associated with that of a capitalistic nature. An inclination to a characteristically free market, ‘laissez faire’ economy, as endorsed by predominantly neo-liberal members of political life, has seen concerns raised from supporters of increased public service investment and a wider distribution of pooled resources. Government intervention, therefore, can be the help or hindrance for entrepreneurial start-up and on-going activity. However, it is strongly argued that, for a stable and diversified economy to prosper effectively, jobs, investment from taxation, and prescribed

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

103

incentives and benefits must be distributed for the benefit of public and private organisations alike. Nationalised statistics show a clear link between successful entrepreneurial activity, from the idea to the resultant organisation, and product and/or service, to that of wider social, economic, and technological advancements that benefit immediate and national economic areas. Governmental pressure to provide a balanced and real-world outlook for our students enables a wider population to benefit. Entrepreneurship, and its intersection with education and social mobility, increases the ambitions of government and universities to match the fortunes of successful examples of the increasingly globalised economy. Isolationism, particularly in the case of the United Kingdom and the recent European Union referendum, is an arguably negative force against successful and idealistic entrepreneurship education programme delivery where diversity amongst participants and in creative, entrepreneurial thinking is highly advantageous. Many institutions, whether they are within the United Kingdom, within continental Europe, or overseas, wish to implement and maintain entrepreneurship education through this variety of methods of delivery, embedding such into disciplines such as the arts and humanities, strategy and business management, engineering, and both scientific and social scientific fields (Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Mars 2007; Neck and Greene 2011; Mason 2014). In keeping responsive entrepreneurship education within higher education, aspects of modules such as the content, delivery, and assessment must be updated and comparable with regards to previous cohorts (Smith and Paton 2011; Pittaway and Edwards 2012; Gibb and Haskins 2014; Gimmon 2014). Achieving this shall increase greater academic legitimacy and shall positively promote entrepreneurship education with respect to other disciplines, and may interest academics within other programmes. An appreciation of longstanding specialisms and the strengthening of current resources, present within universities, aids in the maintenance of multi-disciplinary entrepreneurship education. Comprehensive, generic entrepreneurship education implementation is not conducive towards the anticipative development of real world, business minded individuals of twenty-first century higher education.

104 

R. J. Crammond

Recent statistical information indicates a strong and diverse range of new and entrepreneurial intentioned start-ups. Increasing numbers of start-ups are being established (11,110 more enterprises registered in Scotland in 2017), as similarly increasing opportunities to gain advice and support are apparent from a number of organisations. For example, Scotland’s annual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) release display the positive outcomes of relevant activity, and the growing number of enterprises, coinciding with the rest of the United Kingdom (Levie 2014, 2015, 2016). A recent GEM release for the United Kingdom as a whole, from 2016, showed that Total Early-stage Entrepreneurship Activity (TEA) rates were similar across the home nations: England (9.2%), Wales (7.6%), and Scotland (7.3%). However, Northern Ireland displayed a rate of 6.3%, which was lower than the UK average. More than 80% of those involved in TEA in the United Kingdom were motivated by opportunity within a given market. The advent of entrepreneurship education programmes, amongst the student population, may of course contribute to this statistic. Inversely, the necessity rate decreased by 0.4% from 1.6% to 1.2%. Over 20% of individuals of working age were involved in some form of entrepreneurial activity or intended to incorporate a business in the near future (Levie 2016). The UK rate of 11.1% of working age individuals expecting to start a business within the next three years is more than that of Germany (8.1%); however, both rates were lower than those witnessed in France (17.2%) and in the United States (16.4%) (Levie 2016). Approximately 80% of the ‘non-entrepreneurial’ population believe that entrepreneurs enjoy a high regard within society. Around 20% of UK-based TEA entrepreneurs have high job expectations. In inspiring and assisting in this entrepreneurial journey, reaction from universities promotes such entrepreneurial activity and bespoke entrepreneurship education programmes. Institutional and national research activity within nations informs institutions of the requisite resources and networks towards successful and sustained entrepreneurial activity and initiatives. With definitions of enterprise (skills based) and entrepreneurship education (venture based) now more universally adopted, publications have advised and supported this now vibrant range of entrepreneurship

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

105

e­ ducation programmes and entrepreneurial activity. Within the United Kingdom, and internationally, there has been a number of high profile, influential reporting released that has endorsed entrepreneurship education, displaying its progression and various practices. As discussed throughout this book, the Compendium of Pedagogies for Teaching Entrepreneurship, compiled by the NCEE, lists 44 various methods of teaching entrepreneurship education. Published in 2007, it outlines these methods and categorises them between eight stipulated learning outcomes. It has provided a meaningful guide for entrepreneurship education educators and university staff, globally. Lord Young’s series of reports (2012–2014) on enterprise and small firms closes on the ‘Enterprise for All’ report of 2014. Within it, he addresses the increasing number of people regarded as self-employed and stresses that captive, continuous, and coherent entrepreneurship education can create influential, lifelong experiences. Recommendations from his report include greater record keeping of a student’s enterprise-related attainment, preparing teachers for enterprise via their own continuous professional development, and allowing students from any higher education programme to be able to select an enterprise option to study. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s (QAA) 2012 publication, ‘Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers’ offers definitional and practical assistance to entrepreneurship educators continuing to, or adopting, such education. Definitions of enterprise, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial effectiveness are expressed, from academic research, and lists objectives for the educators. In summarising, reports such as the QAA publication highlights the multitude of features of entrepreneurship education, and this pedagogical shift in learning interaction and objective. In assessing the success of entrepreneurship education within both further and higher education, a year later witnessed a study conducted and published by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Their report in June 2013, titled ‘Enterprise Education Impact in Higher Education and Further Education’, outlined academic research, ‘netno-­ graphic’ investigation, and follow-up interviews to assess the expected outcomes and impact of entrepreneurship education. Results indicated that participation in entrepreneurship education-related programmes in

106 

R. J. Crammond

activity does indeed lead to students acquiring related business knowledge and skills for enterprising activities. There is, as seen in other studies, evidence which indicates that a transformation in perspective and attitude towards entrepreneurialism is expected compared to non-­ participants. However, the report does not witness any evidence of students then being more likely to create and run a small business. With reports such as these, there has been increasing numbers of publications in recent years alluding to this notion of the entrepreneurial university (inc. Gibb et al. 2013). These reports justify the need for such institutions, given the student demand, to be responsible and present the resources available. Progressive forms of entrepreneurship education develop personal qualities and nascent entrepreneurs, through entrepreneurial situations, descriptive course aims, innovative and exciting teaching methods, and thought-provoking, yet practical and inspiring approaches. Small business courses of the past are now considered as being too narrow and theoretically explicit towards harder aspects of business management, with now modern, entrepreneurial equivalents being much broader and inclusive in nature. These modern alternatives include referring to new publications centred on entrepreneurship, attending lectures that are hosted by guest speakers, and reading and completing relevant, reflective small business and scenario case studies. The latter method is now an inviting source of teaching material towards opening wider discussion and enabling research inquiry within the classroom. Business reports and plans are also ever-­present, and are included within entrepreneurship education course structures as a possible group activity which can be submitted towards summative, assessed elements of a module. Such progressive, educational pedagogies, in order to unearth entrepreneurial competencies, must focus on promoting key traits such as autonomy, business innovation, quantifying risk, and taking risks. This enables students to make reasoned decisions, but also recover from particular mistakes; mistakes which can, and should be, reflected upon after the event (Ibrahim and Soufani 2002). However, as the case with many institutions, students are still being educated about entrepreneurship rather than for the eventual and necessary practices which it entails (Laukkanen 2000; Kirby 2005).

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

107

Of course, the primary concern of entrepreneurial universities is to educate and expose students to enterprise and entrepreneurship, with them being suitably assessed with hopeful signs of improved entrepreneurial intentions evidenced (Ertuna and Gurel 2011). This evidencing of intention can be measured by identifying distinct behaviours, as well as their performance during assessed, practical components within modules (Fayolle 2005). Turker and Selcuk (2009) stress that intention factors, and ways in which to raise them, are also reliant on this surrounding support within universities; including the timely advice given towards meeting business, societal, and real-world expectations. Previous research theorised that entrepreneurs were not as sufficiently educated as the rest of the working population (Jacobowitz and Vidler 1982). However, more recent investigations state the contrary: people who start their own ventures are greatly informed about the business world and their respective sector, and in fact attain greater, higher degrees of academic credential (Bowen and Hisrich 1986; Bates 1995). Case Study III: Energising Entrepreneurship Education: Stories from the Classroom A couple of years ago, I was teaching on an enterprise module where students, in groups, think of a profitable business idea. To pass the module, they had to compile a written business plan and present a defence of the business’ feasibility and viability in its given market. It is an exciting module, where students are put to the test. They need to think of a prospective business that could be successful, would turn a profit, and also be of benefit to wider society. The module comprises of a number of stages, to replicate a typical entrepreneurial journey centred on business creation: • • • • • • • •

Ice-breaker sessions and Idea Generation Initial Research and Business Justification Business Planning Financial Forecasting Market Awareness Legal and Social Implications Pitch Planning Plan Submission and Pitch Presentation

During these stages, the onus is on the group formulation and dynamic, to push the idea to a potential business venture. Of course, with other

108 

R. J. Crammond

academic, work, and personal commitments, students can feel the pressures and become increasingly stressed. During the module, uncertainty over ideas and group progression can become an issue. One example that I have experienced involved one group back in 2017. They became flustered and could not decide which particular business idea to take to the next stage of the module. Although taking on board the comments from the teaching team and me, they doubted their ability and group direction. Panic was setting in fast. I believe issues such as this further highlight the importance of distinguishing how different the student journey is between an entrepreneurship education student, and those enrolled on more general, business courses. Given the practical nature of the module, I reiterated to the group that they have compiled credible ideas and have built up a bank of materials which could compliment them. They had time, and with that, I helped them to prepare a plan of action for them to follow as best as they could. They began to calm down and work together. This was achieved through delegation of duties and confirming mini-deadlines for elements of the remaining workload. As the weeks passed by, the group began to embrace the enterprising process, and prepared a robust defence of their confirmed idea. Upon the day of the assessed business pitch, they appeared confident and ready. To this day, I have not seen a better presentation. All aspects expected from a group on the module were addressed excellently. They achieved a well-deserved A grade, with commendable comments from the assessment panel. This is an example of a true and realistic student journey; facing fears and doubts, and overcoming them. Valuable lessons were learned, and the group stated that they were now able to evidence entrepreneurial skills in action. Now, consider the following: Recall a memorable and significant time from the classroom: Q1) Q2) Q3)

What happened? What was the impact? Were there any notable lessons learned?

In establishing and maintaining the required, enterprising relationships for a lasting, institutional legacy, it is clear that many universities must improve current levels of identification and engagement between entrepreneurship education-relevant stakeholders. Identifying and engaging with resources and experts, rooted in enterprising behaviour and from immediate university environments encourage the operation,

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

109

simulation, and reflection of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial activity towards and beyond post-certification activity.

4.6 Building Entrepreneurial Legacies Ecosystems interact with the educational environment, providing business advice, support, incubation, and acceleration facilities, as well as bespoke mentoring. These organisations are now involved, and are an ever-present element of growing entrepreneurship education within countries. This includes delivering guest presentations to students, being part of the formative and summative assessment process for various entrepreneurship education-related modules (business planning, pitching, and marketing), and delivering workshops and hosting events which invite students from all disciplines, faculties, and interests. For many students progressing through a taught degree programme, whether it be three or four years of an undergraduate degree, or up to two years of postgraduate study, it can pass by very quickly. Students can be somewhat side tracked from their initial goals and ambitions, set before embarking upon higher education, by the obvious and necessary aspects of simply being a student: examinations, studying, effective research, and writing, and so on. However, the journey of higher education should not be ignored, or undervalued. This journey involves experiencing new things, being involved in reasoned debate in a classroom environment, meeting new people, and challenging oneself in preparation for the future. As well as increasing the requisite knowledge and understanding of a particular topic, for the workplace and life in general, softer skill sets are desired and addressed within higher education. Critical towards enriching a student’s life experiences and emboldening personalities, entrepreneurship education aims to facilitate a life-changing form of ­education. This improving of entrepreneurially relevant personal and interpersonal skills is confronted during university. Entrepreneurship educators promote both entity-based entrepreneurship education, some through the creation of new ventures, and skills-­ focused enterprising education. This difference extends the message and opportunity to develop a multitude of approaches and methods,

110 

R. J. Crammond

mentioned in various other chapters of this book. In turn, this encourages inclusivity and participation amongst students belonging to many academic schools and research departments who wish to undertake relevant workshops, modules, or programmes. The entrepreneurial university is an ever-growing term, applied to many universities that aim to promote enterprise and produce entrepreneurially minded individuals, including staff and students, for the good of the institution and wider reaching members and groups of society. Somewhat an envisioned concept, it has allowed entrepreneurship education and the attributable philosophies to permeate throughout the institution, by particular programmes, influential members of the institution, and the stipulated principles outlined by management. The demand for an entrepreneurial university can be due to a mixture of conscious and obligatory factors, predominantly from higher education bodies, and local and national governments. However, important to comprehend is that some universities can implement and realise their ambitions more so than others. An entrepreneurial university deals with social, economic, and technological issues through modern teaching, research, and commercial activities. It consists of experienced individuals and informed research centres who try to embed innovative ideas and activities at undergraduate, postgraduate, and research levels. In creating this type of institution, a university must be able to provide an innovative environment. The demand for such an institution comes from recent governmental publications, the change in the necessary graduate skill set and experience, and through evolved theory and progressive, practical pedagogical paradigms. Institutions compete with others by utilising innovative and technological facilities, which attracts students to the university or college. As discussed, products of an entrepreneurial university include the success of academic and research student spinouts, graduates displaying certain entrepreneurial qualities through activity, and the injection of periodic funding towards many sub-disciplines of entrepreneurship. It is an ultimate aim that relationships between immediate and national stakeholders can encourage or further strengthen such entrepreneurial universities. This, of course, centralises the importance and influence of the external stakeholder and arguably, exposes the untapped resources from within a university at teaching, research, and managerial levels.

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

111

The calculated application of relevant resources, with the guidance of institutional- wide strategy for enterprise, has enabled many institutions around the world to regard themselves as pioneering the enterprise ecosystem and creating steady and strong legacies based on students’ entrepreneurial successes. Entrepreneurial programmes address key business issues, which are central to entrepreneurship: including the recognising of viable opportunities, systematically taking advantage of them, creating appropriate business plans, managing the new venture, harnessing an innovative mind-set, and being a charismatic leader to any given workforce possessing an entrepreneurial vision (Garavan and O’Cinneide 1994a, b; Kuratko 2003, 2004). This accepted process between creation, innovation, and on-going enterprising actions are now a regular addition to courses delivered within universities globally (Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Evolving entrepreneurship education literature is now able to sufficiently highlight and develop helpful frameworks which bridge the gap between required skills attainment and economic prosperity in society (Kirby 2003; Shane 2003). An entrepreneurial opportunity, through a sustained form of entrepreneurship education within a university, can create entrepreneurial outcomes that inter-connect with other academic disciplines and engaging with many parts of society (e.g. see Jones 2011, 2013). Independent, creative-thinking graduates are now an integral part of a productive and thriving economy. The increasing rate of graduate entrepreneurial activity, and alumni-based start-ups, vindicate the progression of entrepreneurship education in recent years. The responsibility of maintaining this, and thus producing a unique legacy, lies with the university, its academics and its supporting staff (Smith et al. 2006; Nelles and Vorley 2010a, b, 2011; Gibb et  al. 2013). Fayolle et  al. (2006), amongst others, have sought to assess this positive impact of intervening entrepreneurship education. This has included, during the mid-1990s, an initial review of the relatively new, educational phenomenon within higher education (i.e. Garavan and O’Cinneide 1994a, b; Gorman et  al. 1997; Pittaway and Cope 2007). The success of such research endeavours has both informed teaching and since supported enterprising institutions towards comparable best practice (Gedeon 2014). Ever-changing educational paradigms, which encourage a student-centric approach, and modern philosophies which bring together

112 

R. J. Crammond

institutional and societal domains, now welcome and accommodate this wider facilitation of embedded education which specialises in entrepreneurialism (Hindle 2007; Smith et al. 2006). As with all university programmes however, they can be maintained or discarded due to a number of institutional factors. These include a lack of student demand for the programme, insufficient financial or human resources, the course fails to complement with the discipline’s expectations, or that it does not complement the department’s other programmes and on-going objectives or educational strategy.

4.7 The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Concept The concept below provides a birds-eye, networked view of the individuals and conceived priorities concerning entrepreneurial ecosystems, which can initially alert those who can enact change. What Does This Mean? Figure 4.1 identifies the individuals, groups, and institutions who contribute to the entrepreneurial university’s ecosystem, impacting on the academic curriculum, approach, engagement, and overall ethos related to entrepreneurship within higher education. The illustration highlights the thematic priorities and considerations from primary, secondary, and tertiary stakeholders. This must include the educator and student relationship, the wider university support system, the impact of industry, and intervention of government and media platforms. Additionally, the model notes the informative and responsive dynamic, between internal and external stakeholder groups of this ecosystem network. Internally, within the university, educators and students outline their own, educational aims during the course of their professional and learning journeys. Also, the knowledge and experience of the university community emboldens and encourages an enterprising agenda. This can only be realised with the assistance and sustained financial and human capital endorsed from senior levels of higher education. These activities respond to the external environment.

Fig. 4.1  The entrepreneurship ecosystem concept: an illustration

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

113

114 

R. J. Crammond

External to the university, the intervention of local and national government, and media power, impact on the operations of the university, entrepreneurially or not. Likewise, the influence of existing entrepreneurs and small businesses, putting ideas into practice and realising financial and market reward, inevitably alters the focus of institutions as they align their education and initiatives towards entrepreneurialism. In essence, they inform the university towards the enhancement of education and engagement for students, both present and in the future. This culminates in the establishing of a feedback and feed-forward education-and-­industry mechanism which, if communicative lines and practical engagement are maintained, supports the premise and spirit through the practice of entrepreneurship. What Are the Practical Implications? The third concept that this book outlines involves the many individuals and considerations that contribute towards a hopeful, entrepreneurial ecosystem. This ecosystem model advances similar efforts to conceptualise desired, institutional environments. With the classroom, individuals and groups can consider the many activities, responsibilities, and resultant perspectives and emotions within this ecosystem dynamic. What are the aims of educators and students within your university? What levels of expertise are available, and what is your experience of these university services? What is the level of engagement between your university and business? Can it be improved? This novel ecosystem concept can accompany some of the practical worksheets enclosed within the appendix of this book. These include appendices C, D, and E.

4.8 Conclusion The financial, operational, and competitive pressures amongst universities today disrupt the status quo. University leaders are now testing their capabilities with renewed strategies, and shared entrepreneurial visions and ecosystems, which asserts their institution’s stance on enterprise and

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

115

entrepreneurship as sources of education and skills development. With advancing entrepreneurship education, comes a need to display the progress of these workable ecosystems, and the bridging of industry and education, through enterprising and innovative teaching. As per Fig. 1.1, this chapter visits the following question: Q2.  What notable progressions, concerning entrepreneurship education, have already been witnessed? Author’s Response Since the 1980s, a significant ‘explosion’ of information and evidence concerning university-centric entrepreneurial studies has resulted in entrepreneurship education not being restricted to certain institutions and walks of life. Recent reporting has standardised meanings and approaches of how to teach entrepreneurship, which can be initially applied within universities. With this comes great responsibility to then contextualise entrepreneurship, in allowing institutions to meet their aims and ambitions. Appreciating the entrepreneurial student within education advances the development of the enterprising vision, strategy, and action, within the higher education context. This chapter has discussed the growing trend of entrepreneurial universities as a means to attract students, funding, and greater alumni and graduate legacy. Entrepreneurship education enhances the teaching experience, for all stakeholders within the immediate higher education environment. Therefore, an understanding of the rationale behind a university’s perspectives on entrepreneurship education programmes must be acknowledged further, in developing progressive understandings and useful conceptualisations. The personal development of students is brought to the forefront of the new, enterprising higher education objective, as the need to attain entrepreneurial competences is comprehended. Furthermore, issues such as the rate of graduate entrepreneurs and career destination, post-­ certification, form a large part of entrepreneurship education research. The entrepreneurial ecosystem, a result of entrepreneurial universities, appreciates the power of relevant stakeholders and their interactions within the entrepreneurship education environment, both in education

116 

R. J. Crammond

and in wider student support. Significantly, in widening the overall stakeholder engagement of many within higher education and preparing students for the realities of the business or small business world, recipients of entrepreneurship education are able to more clearly envision their current or potential entrepreneurial activities. The following chapter introduces traditional stakeholder theory and its transition from the organisational context to the higher educational setting. This has led to numerous individuals that are sought after by universities, in establishing, promoting, and maintaining entrepreneurship education.

References Acs, Z. J. (2007) ‘How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?’ American Institute for Economic Research: Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization. Vol.1(1), pp. 97–107. Amaral, A. and Magalhaes, A. (2002) ‘The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance’. Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Vol.1(1). Anderson, A. R. and Jack, S. L. (2008) ‘Role typologies for enterprising education: the professional artisan?’ Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 259–273. Armbruster, C. (2008) ‘Research universities: Autonomy and self-reliance after the entrepreneurial university’. Policy Futures in Education. Vol.6(4), pp. 372–389. Bates, T. (1995) ‘Self-employment entry across industry groups’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.10(3), pp. 143–156. Benneworth, P. and Osborne, M. (2015) ‘Understanding Universities and Entrepreneurship Education: towards a comprehensive future research agenda’. Bicknell, A., Francis-Smythe, J. and Arthur, J. (2010) ‘Knowledge transfer: de-­ constructing the entrepreneurial academic’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.16(6), pp. 485–501. Bowen, D.D. and Hisrich, R.D. (1986) ‘The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.11(2), pp. 393–407. Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

117

Casson, M. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship, business culture and the theory of the firm’. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. (pp. 223–246). California: Springer US. Casson, M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm’. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization. Vol.58(2), pp. 327–348. Clark, B.R. (1998) ‘The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response’. Tertiary Education and Management. Vol.4(1), pp. 5–16. Colyvas, J.A. and Powell, W.W. (2007) ‘From vulnerable to venerated: The institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences’. In The Sociology of Entrepreneurship. (pp.  219–259). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Deem, R. (2001) ‘Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities: is the local dimension still important?’. Comparative Education. Vol.37(1), pp. 7–20. Deem, R. and Johnson, R. (2003) ‘Risking the university? Learning to be a manager-academic in UK universities’. Sociological Research Online. Vol.8(3), pp. 1–15. Dew, N. and Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007) ‘Innovations, stakeholders and entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol.74(3), pp. 267–283. Ertuna, Z. I. and Gurel, E. (2011) ‘The moderating role of higher education on entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.53(5), pp. 387–402. European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012. European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fayolle, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’ International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol.2(1), pp. 89–98. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2010) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) (Eds.) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A. and Redford, D.T. (2014) Handbook on the entrepreneurial university. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) ‘Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.30(9), pp. 701–720.

118 

R. J. Crammond

Fetters, M., Greene, P. G. and Rice, M. P. (Eds.). (2010) The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Finlay, I. (2004) ‘Living in an ‘entrepreneurial’university’. Research in Post-­ Compulsory Education. Vol.9(3), pp. 417–434. Garavan, T. N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994a) ‘Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation – Part 1’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.18(8), pp. 3–12. Garavan, T. N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994b) ‘Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation – Part 2’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.18(11), pp. 13–21. Gedeon, S. A. (2014) ‘Application of best practices in university entrepreneurship education: designing a new MBA program’. European Journal of Training and Development. Vol.38(3), pp. 5–5. Gibb, A. A. (1987) Enterprise culture—its meaning and implications for education and training’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.11(2), pp. 2–38. Gibb, A. A. (1993) ‘Enterprise culture and education understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.11(3), pp. 11–34. Gibb, A. and Hannon, P. (2006) ‘Towards the entrepreneurial university’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.4(1), pp. 73–110. Gibb, A., Hannon, P., Price, A. and Robertson, I. (2007) ‘A compendium of pedagogies for teaching entrepreneurship’. [Online], International Entrepreneurship Education Programme, http://ieeponline.com/wp-content/ uploads/2013/11/Wider-reading-draft-Ped-Note-compendium.pdf. [Accessed: 5 October 2015] Gibb, A., Haskins, G. and Robertson, I. (2009) ‘Leading the entrepreneurial university’. NCGE Policy Paper, October, NCGE, Birmingham. Gibb, A., Haskins, G. and Robertson, I. (2013) ‘Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions’. In Universities in Change (pp. 9–45). New York: Springer. Gibb, A.A. and Haskins, G. (2014) ‘The university of the future an entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organisation?’ Handbook on the Entrepreneurial University. Vol.25. Gimmon, E. (2014) ‘Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.56(8/9), pp. 814–825. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997) ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.15(3), pp. 56–77.

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

119

Hager, P. and Hyland, T. (2003) ‘Vocational education and training’. The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. pp. 271–287. Hindle, K. (2007) ‘Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy’ in Alain Fayolle (ed.) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Houston, K. and Mulholland, G. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial mathematics graduates’. University of Ulster, Jordanstown. Ibrahim, A.B. and Soufani, K. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: a critical assessment’. Education and Training. Vol.44(8/9), pp. 421–430. Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A. R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.5(3), pp. 110–125. Jacobowitz, A. and Vidler, D.C. (1982) ‘Characteristics of entrepreneurs: Implications for vocational guidance’. Vocational Guidance Quarterly. Vol.30(3), pp. 252–257. Jones, C. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurship education: Revisiting our role and its purpose’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4), pp. 500–513. Jones, C. (2011) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Jones, C. (2013) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Jones, C. and English, J. (2004) ‘A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education’. Education and Training. Vol.46(8/9), pp. 416–423. Kirby, D. A. (2003) Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kirby, D.A. (2005) ‘A case for teaching entrepreneurship in higher education’. Education and Training. Vol.31(4), pp. 9–10. Kirby, D.A., Guerrero, M. and Urbano, D. (2011) ‘Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model’. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration. Vol.28(3), pp. 302–316. Kuratko, D. F. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century’. White Paper. US Association of Small Business Education. Kuratko, D. F. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the 21st century: From legitimization to leadership’. USASBE National Conference. January, pp. 1–16.

120 

R. J. Crammond

Landström, H., Harirchi, G. and Åström, F. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base’. Research Policy. Vol.41(7), pp. 1154–1181. Laukkanen, M. (2000) ‘Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.12(1), pp. 25–47. Levie, J. (2014) ‘Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Scotland 2013 Report’. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Levie, J. (2015) ‘Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Scotland 2014 Report’. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Levie, J. (2016) ‘Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Scotland 2015 Report’. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Levie, J. (2017) ‘Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Scotland 2016 Report’. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Mars, M. M. (2007) ‘The diverse agendas of faculty within an institutionalized model of entrepreneurship education’. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.10(1), pp. 43–62. Mason, C. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial finance in a regional economy’. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Vol.12(3), pp. 167–172. Mason, C. (2014) Creating Entrepreneurial Campuses: A report for Scotland. Discussion Paper. Quality Assurance Agency Scotland, Edinburgh. Matlay, H. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 627–643. Matlay, H. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.16(2), pp. 355–368. Matlay, H. (2010) ‘Introduction: contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4). Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182. Matlay, H. and Hussain, J. (2012) ‘The future of entrepreneurship education in the UK’s’ Big Society’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(6), pp. 521–530. McAdam, M., Miller, K. and McAdam, R. (2016) ‘Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective’. Technovation. Vol.50, pp. 69–78.

4  Enterprising Universities and Industrial Ecosystems 

121

McKeown, J., Millman, C., Sursani, S. R., Smith, K. and Martin, L. M. (2006) ‘Graduate entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom’. Education and Training. Vol.48(8/9), pp. 597–613. National Statistics (2017) ‘Businesses in Scotland 2017: A National Statistics publication for Scotland’ Business and Energy, The Scottish Government. National Statistics. Edinburgh, Scotland. Neck, H.  M. and Greene, P.  G. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.49(1), pp. 55–70. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2010a) ‘Constructing an entrepreneurial architecture: An emergent framework for studying the contemporary university beyond the entrepreneurial turn’. Innovative Higher Education. Vol.35(3), pp. 161–176. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2010b) ‘Entrepreneurial by design: Theorizing the entrepreneurial transformation of contemporary universities’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.24(3), pp. 157–164. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurial architecture: A blueprint for entrepreneurial universities’. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/ Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration. Vol.28(3), pp. 341–353. O’Connor, A. (2013) ‘A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.28, pp. 546–563. Peterman, N. E. and Kennedy, J. (2003) ‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. Vol.28(2), pp. 129–144. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C. and Lupton, G. (2011) ‘The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions’. Technovation. Vol.31(4), pp. 161–170. Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurship Education A Systematic Review of the Evidence’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.25(5), pp. 479–510. Pittaway, L. and Edwards, C. (2012) ‘Assessment: examining practice in entrepreneurship education’. Education and Training. Vol.54(8/9), pp. 778–800. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D. and Jiang, L. (2007) ‘University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature’. Industrial and corporate change. Vol.16(4), pp. 691–791. Shane, S.  A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

122 

R. J. Crammond

Smith, A. J., Collins, L. A. and Hannon, P. D. (2006) ‘Embedding new entrepreneurship programmes in UK higher education institutions: challenges and considerations’. Education and Training. Vol.48(8/9), pp. 555–567. Smith, A. M. and Paton, R. A. (2011) ‘Delivering enterprise: A collaborative international approach to the development, implementation and assessment of entrepreneurship’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(1), pp. 104–118. The Scottish Government. (2016) Enterprise and Skills Review: A Call for Evidence. July 2016. Turker, D. and Selcuk, S. S. (2009) ‘Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.33(2), pp. 142–159. Tuunainen, J. (2005) ‘Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university’. Higher Education. Vol.50(2), pp. 275–298. Young, J.E. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurship education and learning for university students and practicing entrepreneurs’. Entrepreneurship 2000.

5 The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder Within Universities

The people we meet can influence, but society should inspire. Robert James Crammond

5.1 Introduction The identification, inclusion, and ongoing development of core stakeholders of enterprise and entrepreneurship education, and its impact, entrench and embolden the enterprise message or agenda. Of course, a key ingredient which drives the entrepreneurship syllabi is the connection with industry, commerce, and modern ways of simply doing business. Therefore, this chapter highlights this modern contextualisation of organisational, stakeholder theory towards entrepreneurship education involving the appreciation, and the unification of ideals. This includes primary stakeholders (within the classroom) and the secondary and tertiary stakeholders (individuals within and surrounding the university environment), all of whom influence and support enterprising activities.

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_5

123

124 

R. J. Crammond

5.2 What Is Stakeholder Theory? Critical understandings from the seminal works of stakeholder identification (Freeman 1984), engagement (Friedman and Miles 2006), and salience (Mitchell et al. 1997) underpin humanistic and cultural aspects of the organisational context. However, implementation of similar models targeting proactive and productive entrepreneurship education within universities is not clear. This book addresses this theoretical and conceptual gap within general entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship education programmes, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and higher educational institutional works. The significance of the stakeholder is the primary concern within this book, in both advancing institutional theory and conceptual modelling of prescribed, purposive, and practical entrepreneurial activity. The roles and responsibilities of delivery and support individuals have a significant impact on students, their academic progress, and their entrepreneurial intentions. Salience and flexibility from the internal stakeholder allows for this prescribed activity to result in productive results: academically and industrially. This chapter introduces the background to stakeholder theory, as this book applies organisationally related models to the higher education context. Discussed are the origins of stakeholder theory and the evolving concept. This changing and embracing stakeholder concept brings about an inclusive and critical ideology of the organisation and its theoretical evolution into other constructive environments such as education. Changing, narrowing definitions of the stakeholder increase relevancy to these contextual environments. Additional models which highlight stakeholder engagement, including issues of salience, interaction, and the wider macro and microenvironments, along with ongoing critiques of the general concept, are also highlighted. It was Follet in 1918 who first spoke of negative connotations of the organisation as a soulless corporate, legal entity (Schilling 2000). Possibly, this was somewhat inspired by Lord Edward Coke (Lord Chancellor of England) in 1613 who added that corporations cannot be guilty of treason, as they are soulless (Stainer 2004). Organisations have a responsibility to benefit society in whatever operations or services they perform and provide. Carroll (1979) addressed, during the management research

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

125

boom, this notion of the many social responsibilities of the business practices. This concerns the many economic, social, legal, and ethical expectations from individuals and groups. The central concept of stakeholder theory is that the level of organisational success that it achieves is part reliant on how it manages the relationships with key individuals and/or groups, directly or indirectly involved with that organisation (Freeman 1984; Friedman and Miles 2006; Freeman et al. 2010). Stakeholder theory, within any context, is concerned with the vitality stakeholders have when they are involved in the static or changing, potentially positive and negative, nature of an organisation (Freeman et  al. 2010; Matlay 2011). In terms of a small business or university that aims to increase entrepreneurial intention, a stakeholder can influence opportunity recognition, innovation, and the use of resources and create added value within the entity (Dana 2011). The book Corporate Strategy by Ansoff (1965) equated stakeholder theory to the accumulation of management responsibilities and corporate objectives. Ansoff listed his stakeholders as being managers, workers, stockholders, suppliers and vendors, and the main forces directly influencing the working ability of the organisation. Stakeholder theory is about understanding the internal or external forces from different walks of life which can work for or against the organisation, and which can have a direct or indirect impact (Freeman 1984). In practice and in reality, these forces may be evident, or can appear in a process of change, that is, during a business merger or acquisition, a change of direction in operations, or, in the case of educational institutions, during a period of structural transition in personnel or academic programmes. Stakeholder theory has since permeated into the academic and university domain within business management and leadership, finance, marketing, and entrepreneurship research (Friedman and Miles 2006). Stakeholder theory is now concerned with organisational management theory and business ethics. Its purpose is towards identifying models of individuals and/or groups that are stakeholders of a corporation. This may involve the compromising or categorisation of these parties, which are related, directly or indirectly, to an organisation of any age, size, or operation (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). According to Freeman

126 

R. J. Crammond

(1984), there are three levels to the stakeholder concept: rational, process, transnational. This seeks to identify stakeholders within an entity, the interactions involved, and outline ways in which to achieve organisational objectives and goals. Mitchell et al. (1997) argue a normative approach towards the identification and engagement of stakeholders within given entities. This is displayed in the established salience model. Stakeholder theory is particularly unique and dissimilar as it addresses explicit morals and values central to managing legal entities (Phillips et al. 2003). These descriptions are at times vague and cryptic, and used by a multitude of people to mean a multitude of things (Weyer 1996). Friedman and Miles (2006) compiled a list which defines the stakeholder, within varying contexts, showing this refinement over time. Fact Box 7 Stakeholders, and stakeholder groups, are deemed as such where, without their input or support, the given entity could not exist or function. (Stanford Research Institute 1963)

A stakeholder, as defined by Freeman (1984) in his seminal book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, is a member of a group or a stated individual who has the ability to impact an organisation’s activities or scope. Originally, stakeholders were regarded as individuals or groups such as banks, customers, employees, environmentalists, governments, stockholders, suppliers, and any other group that can assist or detriment the corporation. The term ‘stakeholder’ has been said to have initially surfaced in 1963, within management research in a memo at the Stanford Research Institute’s (SRI) Planning Department, between Robert Stewart and Igor Ansoff (Freeman 1984). The term ‘stakeholder’ is a strong and commanding one (Phillips et al. 2003). It implies power and authority. This is considerably due to its conceptual breadth. Such breadth of interpretation, considered one of stakeholder theory’s greatest strengths, is also a conspicuous theoretical frailty. Generally, traditional, organisational stakeholder research identifies individuals and groups as falling into direct and indirect categories. Direct groups include custom-

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

127

ers, employees, local communities, shareholders, and suppliers and distributors. Indirect groups include academics, archetypes or ‘memes’, business partners, competitors, financiers, stockholders, future generations, governments, regulators, policymakers, media, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or activists, non-human aspect, natural environment, past generations, public, and stakeholder representatives (trade unions) (adapted from Freeman 1984; Starik 1993; Friedman and Miles 2006). To this day, Freeman’s influential work continues to be cited by various authors and researchers. Freeman’s now globally famous book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984) intended to relay a pragmatic approach to strategy and operations management in the firm, which should urge organisations to be increasingly aware of stakeholders in attaining greater organisational performance. In the years following Freeman’s publication of 1984, colleagues in the field proposed an ethical basis towards the management of stakeholders, and appreciating its growing theory. Stakeholder theory research has predominantly concerned small firms, larger organisations, and multinational corporations. The research has been categorised as a discipline of industrial management, strategic planning, or management operations. Since the formative years of stakeholder theory, it has been adapted to larger sectors, such as technology and largescale manufacturing. Freeman and Phillips (2002) suggest libertarian origins in stakeholder theory, highlighting normative and instrumental perspectives. This development over two decades in stakeholder theory research led to a construction of ‘stakeholder capitalism’, which has progressed from these more liberal ideals. They claim that these particular philosophies acknowledging autonomy are the most suited keystones of stakeholder theory, which is found in Freeman’s book of 1984. Stakeholder theory has been proposed, or at the very least regarded, as a strong alternative to stockholder-based theories of organisations and managing them (Freeman 1994; Friedman and Miles 2006; Freeman et al. 2010). The fundamental and overriding ideology of stakeholder-focused debate is that organisations must reflect upon, and act, with the best intentions and interests of all impacted individuals and groups.

128 

R. J. Crammond

5.3 The Stakeholder Concept Stakeholder theory, and the overall concept, begins with the assumption that the values, intentions, and impacts of individuals are part of business (Freeman et al. 2004). It asks of powerful managers to express the sense of the value that they create, and what ties its stakeholders together. Stakeholder theory also urges managers to be open and honest with how they want to conduct their business, in delivering the purpose of the organisation. The stakeholder concept provided, during the late 1970s and into the 1980s, a new concept concerning management and leading organisations (Freeman 1984). It involved how a corporation can and should be set up. The fostering of entrepreneurship needs a dual policy that not only focuses on the current state of entrepreneurship but also looks towards its future. Unfortunately, many researchers and other stakeholders overly focus on the former (Turker and Selcuk 2009). A past ideology of managing organisations was to acquire and understand the difference between controlling and owning (Freeman 1984). This was, during Freeman’s release of his book, an initial, managerial view of the firm. Nevertheless, he both outlined the origins of the concept and conceptualised the stakeholder view of the firm. Updated objectives reflect the more complex interactions now comprehended and scrutinised in contemporary stakeholder theory research (Bryson et al. 1999). Since Freeman’s 1984 seminal release and subsequent contemplations on the subject of stakeholder theory, its application into specific, contextual settings are in abundance. An advantage of refining stakeholder categories is that it aids in the consistent grouping of people (Friedman and Miles 2006). Intermediaries in stakeholder engagement include experienced individuals, informal groups, formal groups, and organisations (Friedman and Miles 2006). Organisations can only prosper if they acknowledge the interests of multiple individuals and ­significant groups, rather than simply those of the shareholders (Eden and Ackermann 1998). Matlay (2009) states that with this crystallisation of the environment key stakeholders for the educational environment, namely higher education, can be identified. Stakeholder theory has been regarded as a relatively provocative subject as it calls into

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

129

question the long-standing view that realising profit is the main priority of managers. Nevertheless, its importance still stands, as these theorisations of stakeholders seek to address somewhat overlooked, sociological questions and concerns of the effects of organisations operating within local and national societies (Stern and Barley 1996; Hinings and Greenwood 2002). Developing stakeholder theory has been regarded as presenting and inferring a generalised hierarchy of organisational roles, describing stereotypical individuals within the organisation, implying a level of unrealistic and possibly unnecessary bureaucracy. Other critiques of the concept include the weakening of the fiduciary duty to stockholders from management and the power of particular individuals or groups. Claims have been made that it also weakens the whole organisation, shifting the long-term characteristic of the capitalist mechanism in general (Sternberg and Lubart 1996; Sternberg 1997; Marcoux 2000, 2003; Friedman and Miles 2006). Arguably, stakeholder theory is sensible and timely, yet primitive in terms of an academic field of study. There is a lack of consistency in normative stakeholder values, whilst descriptive stakeholder theory is primitive. The development of this descriptive theory affects our understanding of the normative stakeholder. This is critical in understanding how we view the firm, its members, and its affected stakeholders. Numerous scholars have graphically illustrated stakeholder theory in action, to profile the significance of organisationally relevant individuals, and their conceived level of engagement. The numerous stakeholders within a legal entity or given environment are now more commonly mapped than earlier, linear depictions such as that of Arnstein (1969), with their level of engagement identified more explicitly (adapted from Freeman (1984)). More recently, Mitchell et al. (1997) constructed the salience model to identify and help analyse the legitimacy, urgency, and degree of power of a stakeholder towards an entity. Public organisations are obligated to meet ethical, legal, and economic expectations, discretionary or otherwise (Friedman and Miles 2006). As discussed, the ­objective of the organisation is the maximising of longterm profits, growth, or dividends (Friedman and Miles 2006). Scholars assert that this is the single concern of business as long as given business operations are legal, open, and competitive without fraudulent activity.

130 

R. J. Crammond

Central towards the originality of this book is understanding the stakeholder concept, including definitions, the rationale behind such perspectives, and conceptual models which illustrate organisational frameworks in practice. This book takes into account previous assertions of stakeholder identification and engagement, from the context or organisations, to add value to higher education institutions. The many, notable traits established in the relevant literature that mould the person into being entrepreneurial are discussed. When researching the field, understanding not just the actions of the entrepreneur, but the thought processes are crucial in implementing entrepreneurial activity within a university context. What drives the entrepreneur and the psychological barriers or instigators of entrepreneurial action is important to ascertain why some are successful and some are not. Advancing entrepreneurship education adheres to empirical studies on the entrepreneurial individual, their spirit, and thirst for creation and innovation.

5.4 S  takeholder Recognition Within Higher Education The progression of stakeholder theory research, in understanding organisations, has seen the concept being applied in many other areas, including public services and educational institutions (Matlay 2008, 2011). It is crucial to appreciate the power of stakeholders when dealing with times of crisis or uncertainty (Amaral and Magalhaes 2002; Dew and Sarasvathy 2007; Gibb and Haskins 2014). Analysing stakeholders and adopting stakeholder theory enables a suitable lens to consider complex perspectives of the value of stakeholders, what they seek, and new and improved ways of stakeholder measurement (Marić 2013; McAdam et al. 2016). Authors have observed a particular growth in research related to and focusing on stakeholder theory from the latter decades of the twentieth century, and criticised traditional aims and goals of organisations, such as profit for shareholders and realising competitive advantage (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Reed 2002; Friedman and Miles 2006). Research

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

131

recommendations in the field wish for differing research strategies, including aspects of cognition and managerial behaviours, when investigating the relationship between managers and stakeholder groups and impacted individuals. This managing of the sometimes competing interests of stakeholders has now become a central topic within business analysis and management decision-making literature in the latter part of the twentieth century and today (Harrison and Freeman 1999; Friedman and Miles 2006). Emergent, related issues from these progressive studies include the relationship between stakeholder management and the contemporary view that firms are significantly responsible for social groups and communities around them, which then impacts the performance of organisations and their level of corporate social responsibility on society (Freeman et al. 2004). There are copious amounts of theories and models concerning these issues, but wide-scale, empirical research is arguably in its infancy. Laplume et  al. (2008) reviewed the developing academic literature related to stakeholder theory between 1984 and 2007. They analysed 179 articles, in multiple research fields, which reflected upon the previous writings on stakeholder theory. In summary, five overarching aspects became apparent. These include asserting a definition of the stakeholder and realisation of their vitality, appreciating the behaviours of stakeholders and reaction to given situations and circumstances, appreciating also the behaviours and reactions of firms, the overall or particular performance of the firms, and through continuous theoretical debate (Laplume et al. 2008).

5.4.1 Delivery and Support for Entrepreneurship Education A progressively outward view of the business world and society in general has been allowed to ‘creep into’ the—with respect to the ancient—‘plate glass’ universities, dusty libraries, and creaky corridors of well-established universities in developed or underdeveloped countries. This emergence of the pracademic has lessened tensions with increasing examples of entrepreneurship education success (see Rae 2004, 2005; Gimmon 2014).

132 

R. J. Crammond

Entrepreneurship education programmes are becoming more and more entrenched in the more chiefly, business-focused or centric faculties. Vice chancellors and principals alike invest large sums of money, significant percentages of the institution’s budget, to support students in their education, developmental planning, career advice and opportunities, and placement positions. They understand that education is a global tool which entrants can use upon graduation. Internationally, the entrepreneurship education message is resoundingly positive. It is seen by many as a prerequisite to competent and self-sufficient enterprises, of whichever size and scale, adding to local, regional, and national economies. Internationally speaking, all students predominantly share the same goals and motivations when commencing their higher education. Therefore, entrepreneurship education introduction can instigate and produce like-­ minded individuals in becoming inventive and innovative in their respective countries, performing in their desired industries. Despite obvious and expected cultural differences, entrepreneurship education, worldwide, can complement a condensed, fast-paced, knowledge economy. Studies show entrepreneurship education programmes being replicated by many institutions across many continents, chiefly taking inspiration from the United States’ and United Kingdom’s introductions in the 1970s onwards. It is the flexibility, ownership, and overall development of these entrepreneurship education programmes, however, that can elevate students’ entrepreneurial intentions and the fortunes of local economies, building a country’s economic power, amongst other things. Over time, the embedding of entrepreneurship education programmes allows theoretical frameworks to be constructed and advanced. This, an objective for any academic, would look to validate and justify the inclusion of entrepreneurship as a credible and worthwhile addition to taught disciplines at university. Universally accepted theories of the intersection of entrepreneurship and education have surfaced in the past half-century; these have included past versus present views on entrepreneurship-related education, the plethora of methods used in delivery and assessment, issues surrounding alumni and entrepreneurial intention, and the role of participants. Unsurprisingly, university recruitment primarily involves assessing the suitability of candidates by their academic qualifications. However, entrepreneurship education educators generally are required to display

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

133

not only evidence of entrepreneurial experience but also the passion and enthusiasm to suitably convey the dynamic and actual nature of business that entrepreneurship education programmes wish to represent. Introducing a theoretical lens that adopts past understandings of stakeholder theory enables critical viewpoints, questions, and topics surrounding stakeholder engagement and behaviour to be applied to the educational context. The affirming of the institutional structure towards an entrepreneurial environment is the responsibility and civic duty of universities today. Prescriptive identification, planning, and delegation between internal stakeholders accrue institutional capital in favour of entrepreneurial activity, and related graduate success. As aforementioned, the aim of stakeholder research, in the twenty-first century, is to narrow the technical meanings and implications of the term, to represent a stronger, more convincing theory as a basis for further research. Contextualising past concepts to advance entrepreneurship education–related stakeholder constructs makes sense of current entrepreneurship education output. Testing long-standing and peer-reviewed works and beliefs, within the organisational stakeholder field, allows for the theorising of the practical phenomenon which entrepreneurship education illustrates. Fundamental to creating long-lasting entrepreneurship education is one which nurtures and produces graduate entrepreneurs with applicable skills-sets (Gimmon 2014). Greater, more assured help from government is required (Bryson et  al. 1999). Developing Freeman’s theory, Amaral and Magalhaes (2002) recognise external stakeholders surrounding entrepreneurship education. Particularly supportive of entrepreneurship education, Jones et  al. (2012) and Matlay (2009) assess key stakeholder involvement related to the continued emergence of entrepreneurship education in universities worldwide. Dew and Sarasvathy (2007) and Matlay (2008) identify this relationship between entrepreneurs and stakeholders through innovation, regarding entrepreneurial outcomes. The relationships attributed to entrepreneurship education, within the higher educational context, can be complex to describe and inflexible in practice (Matlay 2011). It can be said that an understandable focus on the curriculum, its design and adequate provision during the primitive

134 

R. J. Crammond

period of entrepreneurship education research, has left little consideration towards the primary connections between relevant people. Uncertainties in conceptual and empirical study of entrepreneurship education result in a lack of certifiable contributions to be made, concerning the varying duties, emotions, cultures, values, and objectives present within related stakeholder interactions. Evolving research in the field has leaned towards firstly acknowledging the purpose of these enterprising higher education programmes, to both consider and understand the resultant and necessary roles of directly influencing stakeholders (Miller et al. 2014; McAdam et al. 2016). Viewing a convergence and refinement of stakeholder theory research gives a greater comprehension of the particular contexts within which universities work and aim to fulfil their purpose and objectives (Matlay 2008; Marić 2013). In the direct, objective environments of the classroom or lecture theatre, the role of the facilitator or programme leader has an occasionally underrated and underestimated influence. The delivery of consistent entrepreneurship education has been witnessed to have an impact on the fortunes of primary recipients or stakeholders, that is, the participating students. It is therefore by recognising this autonomy and flexibility bestowed upon universities that subsequent and adequate entrepreneurship education can be prescribed across many academically taught disciplines. The role(s) of these facilitators, also a primary stakeholder that has direct and immediate involvement and interaction in entrepreneurship education, dictates a flexible, open-minded, considerate, and sometimes more subjective perspective and approach. Academics, or delivery stakeholders, are in regular contact with the student population, inspiring potential or prospective entrepreneurs through pragmatic course content. Non-academic, departmental staff, or supportive stakeholders, facilitate university-wide activities which further promote the intended objectives and learning outcomes. These include idea ­generation and innovation incubation workshops, keynote speaker presentations and associated breakout sessions, business pitch events, CV guidance, and small business and start-up planning. Relevant stakeholders, within university, are now representative of the changing nature of business schools and interdisciplinary, entrepreneurially minded departments. These individuals and groups are notable by their

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

135

influence both upward-looking to senior, academic management and amongst their own teaching, research, and other student-centric activities. Significant relationships between these groups take the stakeholder concept into educational domains, besides the conventional business organisation, contributing to educational and inclusive education theory. It is by identifying these individuals, who can have an impact on how students learn in university, that improvements can be witnessed within themselves and innovative results in new businesses, products, or services that are potentially realised. As entrepreneurship education is a particular area of education and discipline, it requires a certain type of educator, and a different form of facilitation and optimistic outlook from all involved (Jack and Anderson 1999; Jones 2011, 2013). It is with the help of governmental and educational organisations, big and small, within countries that individuals are allowed to realise their potential and regenerate local communities. All aspects of business, and their participants, should acknowledge the need for creative and innovative investment. Within society these include company stakeholders, union members and employees, customers, prospective investors, and current shareholders. With their involvement, efficient provision can be made that can reap the benefits through reformed entrepreneurship education that is both value for money and provides reinvestment across regions. Enterprising activities build and grow enterprises, transforming economies. Entrepreneurs lead the firm and demonstrate these leadership qualities by selecting particular managerial staff. Management skills and a strong team, building attributes, contribute further essential qualities. Directors on the same small and medium-sized enterprise boards share information and opinions, and how and why these perceptions and information patterns affect the cohesion of the group (Lee and Peterson 2000; Boxer et al. 2013). Management styles vary with entrepreneurial activity within ­companies with that of larger corporations. Employees and management work more closely and the relationships seen can be displayed more frequently. The culture within new and small and medium-sized businesses should be addressed as this enhances productivity, the level of objectives achieved, which can contribute to profitability. True entrepreneurs that realistically convert ideas into long-term products and services are unique

136 

R. J. Crammond

and prosperity can be rare. Entrepreneurs can lead to the discovery of intellectual property and key product lines (Keating and McLoughlin 2010). Casson et al. (2008) theorise that entrepreneurship and marketing are intimately related, with the following three perspectives: the market-­ process perspective, the ongoing marketing perspective, the developing entrepreneurial firm. MacMillan et  al. (1985) and Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) add that organisations must think about external factors and seek expertise whether it is from outsourcing or entrepreneurial individuals. Daft (2011) validates this by documenting the internal and external environments of an organisation, realising that an organisation, or new business venture, does not hold all the necessary knowledge. Entrepreneurs add innovative, unique, and diverse ways of thinking by their very existence (Tidd and Bessant 2009). Entrepreneurship education requires a reboot of the institutional framework and operations of the twenty-first-century University. Within this context, there are of course many pedagogical obstacles and bureaucratic barriers to entrepreneurship education being successfully implemented. However, a new university model that incorporates appropriate individuals adds programme value to the institution through its wider reach and entrepreneurial skills attainment. Opponents of entrepreneurship education regard it as pointless from an academic standpoint, a waste of financial and personnel resources, lacking student demand, and doubt towards an educational institution being able to recreate business environments familiar to the entrepreneur. Educators and supportive individuals who enlighten and enable entrepreneurship education are already permeating the entrepreneurship education agenda within and across university faculties, by applying entrepreneurial skill sets to respective, typical career destinations. These new, ‘pracademics’ are rare within university; however, they exist across many disciplines.

5.4.2 University Support for Enterprise With increasing numbers of small businesses and entrepreneurial activities have come similar surges in supportive mechanisms (Burns 2011; Gimmon 2014). Considering economies in transition, entrepreneurship

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

137

education responds to this by being at the front and centre in business schools around the world. Entrepreneurs and suitable support initiatives are a remedy for poor or worsening economic activity (Matlay 2006a, b, 2008, 2009, 2011). Researchers of entrepreneurship education persist in defining and theorising entrepreneurial concepts, themes, and issues for the higher education environment, adding to the growing literature (Kent 1990; Cunningham and Lischeron 1991; Brockhaus et  al. 2001; Hytti and O’Gorman 2004; Matlay 2005a, b; Pihkala et al. 2011). However, contextualising entrepreneurship education that is inclusive of surrounding, internal student support is limited and rudimentary (McAdam et  al. 2016). As stated in the previous chapter, greater awareness and theoretical expansion in this area would nurture entrepreneurial outcomes and increase intention, by extending and including positive influences towards entrepreneurialism. However, the additional support from outwith the immediate academic environment, but within the institution, increasingly influences the entrepreneurial journeys of students. Examples of such entrepreneurial influencers from careers, guidance, employability, and business incubation departments are conveyed by universities as they seek to realise new, enterprising students (Gimmon 2014). Fact Box 8 In advancing and widening the reach of entrepreneurship and enterprising education, recent reporting including ‘The Entrepreneurial Competences Framework’ (2016) and the ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’ (from 2013) have been released.

The aim of accomplishing an entrepreneurial ecosystem is dependent on the explicit convergence of enterprising ideas, succinct creative processes, and student-centric reflective practices, involving both academic and non-academic staff within universities towards further entrepreneurial engagement. Identifying these key individuals allows inspirational involvement and a motivational attitude to influence the educational environment. Subsequent entrepreneurial engagement includes interaction with external influencers in the academic field and in current business activities.

138 

R. J. Crammond

5.5 The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder Mentoring from influential individuals now contribute to an enterprising journey and productive legacy within the university context (Gimmon 2014). The role of the external stakeholder and entrepreneurial networks (Amaral and Magalhaes 2002; Beresford and Beresford 2010) aid the attainment of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem within universities (Kitagawa et al. 2015). The categorisation of stakeholders provides greater comprehension and asserts the attention of the educator and student journey, if optimal and sustained entrepreneurship education is introduced and maintained. People who become entrepreneurs include inventors, the unfulfilled or displaced manager, the young professional, individuals chancing a second career, or the educationally, socially, or professionally excluded. Westhead and Wright (1998) categorised entrepreneurs into multiple, generalised streams: novice, serial, and portfolio (Matlay 2005a). Furthermore, Burke (2006) distinguishes entrepreneurs as corporate, street, social, and adventurer. Entrepreneurs are enthused by personal autonomy and the chance to create wealth (Bicknell et al. 2010). This could be witnessed from school leavers with an idea to college and university graduates who have gained higher educational experience and exposure to related industry networks (Kolvereid and Moen 1997; Matlay 2011). Cooperative entrepreneurs, similarly to lifestyle entrepreneurs, aim to contribute to society by either working with or adding to it for the overall improvement of community (Barringer and Ireland 2012). Serial entrepreneurs continuously come up with fresh ideas and start new organisations (Bolton and Thompson 2004). They do however have a higher propensity to risk. Of course, many entrepreneurs will comfortably label themselves as ‘fiscal entrepreneurs’ who primarily wish to make their own money on their own terms (Shane 2003; Burke 2006). Fiscal entrepreneurs are intent on making money fast (Barringer and Ireland 2012).

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

139

Lifestyle or enterprising entrepreneurs, alternatively, put passion before profit and possibly combine personal interests and talents with the ability to earn a living (Stokes et al. 2010). Social entrepreneurs are driven by a habitual need to regenerate local and national regions, which positively contributes to business, industry, education, towards improving socio-economic circumstances (Meyer and Crane 2011). Their motivations are usually a mix of creativity coupled with other factors such as commercial reasonableness, influence, and power (Sasi and Arenius 2008). Creative entrepreneurs, as the label suggests, persist on originating new products, services, and inventions (Rae 2007; Allen 2011). Serial entrepreneurs continuously come up with fresh ideas and start new organisations. Unremarkably, entrepreneurial intentions are recognisably greater, with the larger the wealth of parents and/or spouse (Berglann et al. 2011). Inversely, the unemployed regard entrepreneurship as a need, rather than as an opportunity (Berglann et al. 2011). Acknowledging the entrepreneurial identity, behaviour of individuals, and the environment around such can help us appreciate how these complex narratives engage (Down and Warren 2008). Entrepreneurial functions, during the process, include evidencing personal, interpersonal, professional, and both enterprising and leadership skill sets (Lourenço et  al. 2013). This is akin to Henry Minztberg’s ‘Decision Roles’. Entrepreneurs develop a different skill set which enables them to make judgements to coordinate scarce resources (Casson 2005). There is an abundance of information available on entrepreneurship and the traits witnessed from entrepreneurs (Ucbasaran et al. 2001; Wieneke and Gries 2011). Entrepreneurial qualities aim to enable individuals to become economically and socially mobile. Hébert and Link (1988) list 12 themes or depictions of an entrepreneur, which again contribute to a detailed make­up of entrepreneurial qualities. These entrepreneurial qualities can be linked to more commonly known management traits, such as that of Mintzberg (Casson 1982; Gray 2006; Matlay 2011). Management skills, leading a project or group of individuals, and projecting a strong team-­

140 

R. J. Crammond

building ethic are essential leadership attributes for successful entrepreneurs (Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). Entrepreneurs who achieve a strategic fit between these resources, whilst also introducing their own personal traits, have a greater chance of longer prosperity (Lin et al. 2006). Any involvement in society, including pursuing entrepreneurial activities, involves making choices which are influenced by both psychological and environmental factors, including the need for achievement, affiliation, and autonomy (Lee 1997). Harwood (1982) lists five characteristics which include highlighting risk and reward mechanisms, resembling the thoughts of classical economists. Considering the expansion of entrepreneurship research and the attention towards personal, intangible traits of entrepreneurs, researchers now compile lists which aim to encompass these ideas. Other lists were compiled throughout the 1980s and 1990s with the emergence of entrepreneurial research (Hornaday 1982; Gibb 1990). Characteristics such as seeking and acknowledging opportunities, considering risks, and showing resilience are apparent through classroom environment and industry-based teaching and practice (Guzmán and Liñán 2005). Emotionally, entrepreneurs seek fulfilment and wish to make their dreams and aspirations a daily reality. Individual personalities come to the fore when it involves successful entrepreneurs (Bolton and Thompson 2004). They are confident, rarely fear failure or rejection, and are extremely extravert in their opinions and views of the world around them. Entrepreneurial activities dictate that a lack of confidence severely impairs the chance for success, and a more disruptive and powerful presence is more akin to that of the entrepreneur involved in the innovative process (Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Burns 2011). With the advancement of mobile technologies and social media platforms, entrepreneurs now take many guises (Acs 2007; Burns 2011). They coordinate their actions with wider reach and at faster rates. In turn, developing and post-communist economies are seeing a rise in entrepreneurial activity as a route out of poorer lifestyles and disadvantaged standards of living (EC 2012, 2015). The growth of entrepreneurial opportunity, through widened online and social networks, lead to the discovery of internationally applicable ideas, brands, and services (Keating and McLoughlin 2010). The modern, global entrepreneur co-ordinates

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

141

production: being the what, how, and for whom towards an internationalised economy. Women and minority entrepreneurs have also expectantly continued to emerge in record numbers (Kuratko 2005; Burke 2006). Directives from the European Commission (EC) promote social entrepreneurship amongst the new generation of entrepreneurs (such as Volkmann et al. 2009; EC 2015). Entrepreneurial activity, especially in these developed economies, can lead to a maximising of public services, providing solutions to major workforce and resource deficits. Given that the realistic complexities of entrepreneurship are now increasingly documented by researchers, this increasing information of the phenomenon can not only provide valuable contributions to an ever-growing conceptual framework of the discipline to many nations and contexts but also be a means to educate and equip prospective and practising entrepreneurs more adequately (Neck and Greene 2011; Dodd and Hynes 2012). It is with these theoretical advancements that greater scope to facilitate and deliver a relevant and prescriptive form of entrepreneurship education can be made useful to a wide range of stakeholders.

Case Study IV: Key Enterprising Stakeholders: Unlocking the Door We should all comfortably agree that, in order for universities to reflect the realities of business and the wider world, constructive connections with desired stakeholders immediately surrounding, and beyond, the institution are essential. I can recall one particular situation during my time teaching where this was evident on the frontline, as I call it—the classroom environment. During the 2016–2017 academic session, associate lecturers with world-­ class backgrounds in business consultancy, start-up, and enterprise were recruited and involved in the same module as mentioned in this book’s third case study. With over a century of business experience between them, their vast industry knowledge brought breadth and depth to the teaching team and module sessions. They had a lot to say, and people listened. In a time where universities are feeling the effects of financial constraints and market uncertainty, the inclusion of these new lecturers were a breath of fresh air to the environment. It revitalised the school and strengthened the message that the module wished to project.

142 

R. J. Crammond

The business advice given to students, within the classroom, was consistently strong and sound. Students took note, and were appreciative of the comments, as they knew it came from those who have regularly dealt with similar situations. Student feedback for the module was excellent: they performed well, and considered the experience to be worthwhile and helpful towards essential skill-building. Now, consider the following: Q1) Educator: W  ho are the key individuals that you could approach to energise the classroom environment, for enterprise and/ or entrepreneurship education? Q2) Student:

 hat are your plans at the end of the course? Who, from W education or industry, can assist in your personal and professional development?

5.6 Encouraging Educational Stakeholder Inclusivity As Chap. 4 has previously discussed, with an established entrepreneurship ecosystem comes extensive knowledge, recounted experience, and boundless entrepreneurial opportunity. Figure 5.1 develops the notions taken from Fig. 4.1, towards an inclusivity process model. This inclusivity process model initially underlines the various strengths of the stakeholders, as categorised by aspects of capital, which are of direct relevancy to enterprise or entrepreneurship education. The universally accepted forms of capital which are included within this model are intellectual capital, financial capital, social or human capital, and, finally, physical capital. What Does This Mean? This chapter’s process model contextualises the rigid input, process, and output components of systems-type modelling. This is important to describe the benefits of this informative and responsive mechanism, within and for the educational environment. As stated earlier, the key inputs highlight and represent the many forms of capital which are sought by universities and other public-facing bodies: intellectual, financial, social and/or human, and physical.

Fig. 5.1  The educational stakeholder inclusivity model: processes for enterprise

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

143

144 

R. J. Crammond

In this context, intellectual capital involves the knowledge, ideas, expertise, and wisdom towards entrepreneurialism. Champions of enterprise within education and the industry nexus, and recounted experiences from seasoned entrepreneurs raise its platform as a taught and researched field. Financial capital relates to the sustained funding from the university themselves, the payment of fees from students, and the opportunities with local and national business through unique or long-standing partnerships and apprenticeship programmes and initiatives. Social and human capital identifies the key individuals and resultant or necessary relationships that can develop within an enterprising, university environment. As this chapter has highlighted, the significance and influence of these relationships, between people from different backgrounds, aid in the realities of business being suitably represented. Finally, evidence of physical capital is important. With respect to entrepreneurship education, acquiring the appropriate tools and technologies for education, which facilitate its many and associated activities, is vital. Exposure to small business and industry environment also encourages real-world, entrepreneurial practices. These contribute to the stakeholder mix, which defines the university. This stakeholder mix must be unique in responding to competitors within higher education. What is the unique selling point of the university? Who are the notable individuals who champion entrepreneurship? In response to this mix, the universities must establish and develop their teaching, and industrial and societal relevancy, towards the elevation of enterprise. The process model represents these as the current curriculum, the industry pull and information, and the institutional ideology. A balance of personnel and resources, across these forces, should aim towards reaching an entrepreneurial consensus. What Are the Practical Implications? In a similar vein to the ecosystem concept (Fig. 4.1), this involves key individuals who are central to the advancement of entrepreneurship education. This process model stresses the importance of capital and university activities, which are raised through some of the practical worksheets within this book. These chiefly refer to appendices D and E.

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

145

5.7 Conclusion As expressed by my quote at the start of this chapter, which is contextually addressed within both Chaps. 4 and 5, the power of the cross-­industry or interdisciplinary stakeholder can create the initial spark for enterprising activity. It is vitally important to understand where relevant stakeholders can stem from. As with entrepreneurship, a distinct ripple effect touches many lives, communities, industries, and societies. Simply put, with inclusion come ideas; with ideas comes progress. A safe, productive, and prosperous society, by its very nature, only works with this joint effort involving equal input and understanding. Concerning entrepreneurship, perceptions have evidently changed. This is partly down to the instrumental work of universities. Entrepreneurship education has been able to flourish globally as entrepreneurial practice is now not purely regarded as compounding capitalistic conditions, nor does it solely conjure connotations of monetary reward, competition, and seeking desired, market monopoly. This chapter has reflected on the evolution of stakeholder theory towards the educational environment and higher educational context. Delivery and support individuals, who can be sourced from outwith the university, whilst refraining from wholly recruiting typical academics with the usual qualifications and credentials, embolden the educator and learner contract for purposive enterprise. Fond recollections, as shown in the case study within this chapter, have evidenced the positive inclusion of business leaders, company directors, consultants, and entrepreneurs in the classroom as teaching staff. In short, uniquely identifying key individuals within education, for enterprising universities, will enable entrepreneurship education to be strategically and precisely placed within academic schools and certificated programmes. As per Fig. 1.1, this chapter visits the following questions: Q3.

How can we, as educators, students, and supportive individuals and groups, advance entrepreneurship education within the classroom environment?

146 

R. J. Crammond

Author’s Response In this chapter’s context of stakeholder appreciation, networking is fundamental in transitioning enterprising ideas and opportunities into value-­creative and societally beneficial action. A widened community is now apparent and available, if institutions are willing to find it and engage within it. The power is with the university, and its staff, in bringing business realities into the classroom dynamic. This can be done pedagogically, and through both formative and summative assessment. Past examples of guest lecturing, employability events, and assessed presentations including business representatives can all illuminate this enterprising journey. However, e­ mphasis on local projects and responding to the immediate concerns of communities, for example, is what will considerably drive enterprising activities and build unique legacies. Q4.

What does the future hold for the relationship between entrepreneurship education and universities?

Author’s Response It is an exciting time to be involved in entrepreneurship education. Much-­ publicised research and far-reaching publications, that aim to showcase and improve the taught discipline, has elevated and given greater voice to the ‘enterprise agenda’. Universities must embrace this message as they look to increase entrepreneurial opportunities across academic schools and research faculties for all. In facing the future, institutions should re-evaluate their core aims, staffing and departments, research and consultancy capabilities, and modern learning spaces. Entrepreneurship research and its ever-exposing, related disciplines bring about a broad church of the entrepreneurial identity and personality. Entrepreneurial profiling delves into historical, economical, psychological, sociological, and more recently, educational contexts. This, in turn, highlights and addresses both classical and contemporary ideals of business and the influence of the individual. Resultant theoretical advancements reshape cultural and social constructs. Views on entrepreneurs have changed dramatically depending on the perspective within society. Definitions of entrepreneurs now deal with these myriad of identities. New practices and behaviours of increasingly mobilised

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

147

entrepreneurs result from expanding and limitless environments that they themselves envisage. This bears an unquantifiable impact on an array of stakeholders and related, societal groups. The aim of Chap. 5 was to describe the new, entrepreneurial stakeholder for the twenty-first century, conveying the various factors and characteristics which have an effect and ultimately shape the current entrepreneur. This chapter highlights the changing nature and perceptions of the entrepreneurial persona, and the many types of entrepreneur within the market and society, which is now an increasingly accepted career choice. Primary, secondary, and tertiary stakeholders currently part of these creation, facilitation, delivery, and development processes of entrepreneurship education therefore must witness the many types of entrepreneurial personalities, in order to provide suitable preparatory teaching, simulated learning, and practical training. Since the 1980s, when research started to grow considerably, more light has been shed towards understanding the process of entrepreneurship, and the notion that it is much more than just starting a small business. The dynamic nature and personalised situations and circumstances, which lead a particular individual towards this lifestyle, are now acknowledged and analysed with greater attention. Entrepreneurship involves innovation, awareness, management skills, and charismatic leadership. These qualities do not just involve, or are apparent through having, a good, commercial idea. Chapter 6 takes the pertinent points raised from the previous five chapters and looks towards the future of teaching entrepreneurship education. This includes the modernisation of traditional and new universities, as they adapt to the needs of entrepreneurship education and its required setting.

References Acs, Z. J. (2007) ‘How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?’ American Institute for Economic Research: Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization. Vol.1(1), pp. 97–107.

148 

R. J. Crammond

Allen, K. (2011) New Venture Creation. International ed, 6th rev ed. London: South-Western. Amaral, A. and Magalhaes, A. (2002) ‘The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance’. Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Vol.1(1). Ansoff, H.I. (1965) Corporate Strategy: Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. London: McGraw-Hill. Arnstein, S.R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol.35(4), pp. 216–224. Barringer, B. R. and Ireland, D. (2012) Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures. 4th ed. London: Pearson Education. Beresford, R. and Beresford, K. (2010) ‘The role of networks in supporting grassroots good practice in enterprise education’. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. Vol.15(3), pp. 275–288. Berglann, H., Moen, E.  R., Røed, K. and Skogstrøm, J.  F. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship: Origins and returns’. Labour Economics. Vol.18(2), pp. 180–193. Bicknell, A., Francis-Smythe, J. and Arthur, J. (2010) ‘Knowledge transfer: de-­ constructing the entrepreneurial academic’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.16(6), pp. 485–501. Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2004) Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Boxer, R., Perren, L. and Berry, A. (2013) ‘SME top management team and non-executive director cohesion precarious equilibrium through information asymmetry’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.20(1), pp. 55–79. Brockhaus, R.  H., Hills, G.  E., Klandt, H. and Welsch, H.  P. (Eds.) (2001) Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Bryson, J. R., Daniels, P. W. and Ingram, D. R. (1999) ‘Evaluating the impact of business link on the performance and profitability of SMEs in the United Kingdom’. Policy Studies. Vol.20(2), pp. 95–105. Buchanan, D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Burke, R. (2006) Entrepreneurs Toolkit. London: Burke Publishing. Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Carroll, A. B. (1979) ‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.4(4), pp. 497–505.

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

149

Casson, M. (1982) The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Casson, M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm’. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization. Vol.58(2), pp. 327–348. Casson, M., Yeung, B. and Basu, A. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cunningham, J.  B. and Lischeron, J. (1991) ‘Defining entrepreneurship’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.29(1), pp. 45–61. Daft, R.  L. (2011) The New Era of Management. International ed. Ohio: Thomson South-Western. Dana, L.  P. (2011) World Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dew, N. and Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007) ‘Innovations, stakeholders and entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol.74(3), pp. 267–83. Dodd, S.D. and Hynes, B.C. (2012) ‘The impact of regional entrepreneurial contexts upon enterprise education’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.24(9–10), pp. 741–766. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995) ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.20(1), pp. 65–91. Down, S. and Warren, L. (2008) ‘Constructing narratives of enterprise: clichés and entrepreneurial self-identity’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.14(1), pp. 4–23. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998) ‘Analysing and comparing idiographic causal maps’. Managerial and organizational cognition: Theory, methods and research. pp. 192–209. European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012. European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) (Eds.) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R. E. (1994) ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions’. Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol.4(4).

150 

R. J. Crammond

Freeman, R.  E. and Phillips, R.  A. (2002) ‘Stakeholder theory: A libertarian defence’. Business Ethics Quarterly. pp. 331–349. Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and De Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C. and Parmar, B. (2004) ‘Stakeholder theory and ‘the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science. Vol.15(3), pp. 364–369. Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2006) Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibb, A.A. (1990) ‘Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Exploring the differences’. New Findings and Perspectives in Entrepreneurship. Aldershot: Gower. Gibb, A.A. and Haskins, G. (2014) ‘The university of the future an entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organisation?’ Handbook on the Entrepreneurial University. Vol.25. Gimmon, E. (2014) ‘Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.56(8/9), pp. 814–825. Gray, C. (2006) ‘Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.12(6), pp. 345–360. Guzmán, J. and Liñán, F. (2005) ‘Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Education: A US-Europe Comparison’. Jean Monnet European Studies Centre Universidad Antonio de Nebrija. Harrison, J. S. and Freeman, R. E. (1999) ‘Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives’. Academy of Management Journal. Vol.42(5), pp. 479–485. Harwood, E. (1982) ‘The sociology of entrepreneurship’. In Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship. pp. 91–98. Hébert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (1988) The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques. Praeger Publishers. Hinings, C.R. and Greenwood, R. (2002) ‘Disconnects and consequences in organization theory?’ Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol.47(3), pp. 411–421. Hornaday, J.A. (1982) ‘Research about living entrepreneurs’. In Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship, pp. 20–380. Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004) ‘What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries’. Education and Training. Vol.46(1), pp. 11–23. Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A. R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.5(3), pp. 110–125.

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

151

Jones, C. (2011) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Jones, C. (2013) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz, A. (2012) ‘Enterprise education: for all, or just some?’ Education and Training. Vol.54(8/9), pp. 813–824. Keating, A. and McLoughlin, D. (2010) ‘The entrepreneurial imagination and the impact of context on the development of a new venture’. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol.39, pp. 996–1009. Kent, C.  A. (Ed.). (1990) Entrepreneurship Education: Current Developments, Future Directions. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Kitagawa, F., Webber, D.J., Plumridge, A. and Robertson, S. (2015) ‘University entrepreneurship education experiences: enhancing the entrepreneurial ecosystems in a UK city-region’. In The 8th International Conference for Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Regional Development (p. 794). Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.21(4), pp. 154–160. Kuratko, D. F. (2005) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.29(5), pp. 577–598. Laplume, A.  O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.  A. (2008) ‘Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us’. Journal of Management. Vol.34(6), pp. 1152–1189. Lee, J. (1997) ‘The motivation of women entrepreneurs in Singapore’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.3(2), pp. 93–110. Lee, S. M. and Peterson, S. J. (2000) ‘Culture, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Global Competitiveness’. Journal of World Business. Vol.35(4), pp. 401–416. Lin, B., Li, P. and Chen, J. (2006) ‘Social capital, capabilities, and entrepreneurial strategies: a study of Taiwanese high-tech new ventures’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol.73, pp. 168–181. Lourenço, F., Taylor, T. G. and Taylor, D. W. (2013). ‘Integrating ‘education for entrepreneurship’ in multiple faculties in “half-the-time” to enhance graduate entrepreneurship’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.20(3), pp. 503–525. MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R. and Subba Narasimha, P. N. (1985) ‘Criteria used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals’. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, pp. 119–128.

152 

R. J. Crammond

Marcoux, A.  M. (2000) ‘Business ethics gone wrong’. National Emergency Training Center. Marcoux, A.  M. (2003) ‘A fiduciary argument against stakeholder theory’. Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol.13(1), pp. 1–24. Marić, I. (2013) ‘Stakeholder Analysis of Higher Education Institutions’. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems. Vol.11(2), pp. 217–226. Matlay, H. (2005a) ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and does it matter?’ Education and Training. Vol.47(8/9), pp. 665–677. Matlay, H. (2005b) ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 627–643. Matlay, H. (2006a) ‘Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(5). Matlay, H. (2006b) ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(8/9), pp. 704–718. Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 382–396. Matlay, H. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.16(2), pp. 355–368. Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182. McAdam, M., Miller, K. and McAdam, R. (2016) ‘Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective’. Technovation. Vol.50, pp. 69–78. Meyer, M. H. and Crane, F. G. (2011) Entrepreneurship: An Innovator’s Guide to Startups and Corporate Ventures. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Miller, K., McAdam, M. and McAdam, R. (2014) ‘The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective’. RandD Management. Vol.44(3), pp. 265–287. Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.22(4), pp. 853–886.

5  The Entrepreneurship Education Stakeholder… 

153

Neck, H.  M. and Greene, P.  G. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.49(1), pp. 55–70. Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E. and Wicks, A. C. (2003) ‘What stakeholder theory is not’. Business Ethics Quarterly. Pihkala, T., Ruskovaara, E., Seikkula-Leino, J. and Rytkölä, T. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education-what is really happening in class rooms?’ Yrittäjyyskasvatuspäivät. Vol.10(6/7). Lappeenranta. ISBN 978-952-265-139-6. Rae, D. (2004) ‘Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.11(2), pp. 195–202. Rae, D. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(3), pp. 323–335. Rae, D. (2007) Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reed, D. (2002) ‘Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries a critical theory perspective’. Business and Society. Vol.41(2), pp. 166–207. Sasi, V. and Arenius, P. (2008) ‘International New Ventures and Social Networks: Advantage or Liability?’ European Management Journal. Vol.26, pp. 400–411. Schilling, M.A. (2000) ‘Decades ahead of her time: advancing stakeholder theory through the ideas of Mary Parker Follett’. Journal of Management History. Vol.6(5), pp. 224–242. Shane, S.  A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Stainer, L. (2004) ‘Ethical dimensions of management decision-making’. Strategic Change. Vol.13(6), pp. 333–342. Starik, M. (1993) ‘Is the environment an organizational stakeholder? Naturally’. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Business and Society. Vol.466, pp. 471. Stern, R.N. and Barley, S.R. (1996) ‘Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate’. Administrative Science Quarterly. pp. 146–162. Sternberg, R.J. (1997) Successful Intelligence. First Agency Publishing. Sternberg, R.J. and Lubart, T.I. (1996) ‘Investing in creativity’. American Psychologist. Vol.51(7), pp. 677. Stokes, D., Wilson, N. and Mador, M. (2010) Entrepreneurship. London: Cengage Learning.

154 

R. J. Crammond

Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009) Managing Innovation. Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 4th ed. London: John Wiley and Sons. Turker, D. and Selcuk, S. S. (2009) ‘Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.33(2), pp. 142–159. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (2001) ‘The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual and process issues’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.25(4), pp. 57–80. Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Marlotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009) Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative. Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (1998) ‘Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: are they different?’ Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.13(3), pp. 173–204. Weyer, M.V. (1996) ‘In an ideal world’. Management Today. September, pp. 34–38. Wieneke, A. and Gries, T. (2011) ‘SME Performance in Transition Economies: The Financial Regulation and Firm-Level Corruption Nexus’. Journal of Comparative Economics. Vol.39, pp. 221–229.

6 Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces

An enterprising, educational environment is the creative stage from which innovation can prosper. Robert James Crammond

6.1 Introduction Educational philosophies, such as Dewey’s stance of education as a powerful tool towards social and intellectual liberation, have had a profound effect on established and ongoing perspectives of education, including courses and research activities concerning entrepreneurship education. Past assertions give a glimpse into their respective eras with what was held true and important for a free, prosperous, and educated society for all. Key ideals such as personal autonomy, liberation, and freedom of thought influence the educational approach and types of entrepreneurship education programmes created and delivered today (Fayolle and Klandt 2006). This chapter considers the future directions for entrepreneurship education. This includes appreciating the required modernisation of the classroom, to adapt to enterprising learning. The advent of mobilised and

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_6

155

156 

R. J. Crammond

digitised education, which can accelerate various forms of entrepreneurship education, is also discussed. Previously highlighted macroeconomic issues are revisited with the fifth and final case study of this book: The University and Brexit. A central factor when combining the expertise and skill sets of notable stakeholders of entrepreneurship education, concerning both the delivered and assessed content itself, is the productive and encouraging learning spaces which are now ever-increasingly desired. As we have already seen within this book, identifying key individuals within university informs and engages students, as they educate and disseminate core and surrounding themes and topics relevant to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education can indeed be a life-changing journey, which is a two-way street between the positive, educator influence and the motivated, student ambition. Enterprising and purposive learning spaces, promoted by schools and senior university management, increase student registration and retention into entrepreneurship programmes. This also increases entrepreneurial intentions, with a direct correlation witnessed between exposure to enterprise and entrepreneurial activity. Onus is on senior university staff to project an inspiring and universal vision of what enterprise means to the institution, but also to assert what values they wish to see in the student population. They are ambassadors of their institution, and also for the immediate communities outwith, upon which they serve. As the relevant research has developed over recent years, the environments within which students learn and are inspired by entrepreneurship are of great importance. The learning spaces discussed within this chapter allude to many aspects of the educational journey, through which entrepreneurship education can thrive.

6.2 M  odernising the University Through Entrepreneurship Education Learning spaces, a broad term used within this book, includes a number of considerations for entrepreneurship education concepts, and teaching practice. These considerations increasingly contextualise entrepreneurship

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

157

education from the institution to specific learning-based activities, and include the environment within the university, the classrooms and facilities, the group or activity set-up, and the valuable platforms towards digitising, mobilising, and realising entrepreneurial opportunity. It is worthwhile to consider these in isolation, before elaborating on them further, within an educational, industrial, and societal nexus. Firstly, thinking more broadly of learning spaces as also being general centres of enterprise, it is critical to examine the environment endorsed within the university. Similar to the organisational culture of modernday organisations, universities should of course be aware of how they operate and the perception that they emit to society. Advancing from the earlier ideals of organisational culture, the associate facets of such are heightened greatly within the educational context. It is simply not a question of universities reflecting on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. This institutional shoe-gazing is chiefly seen amongst universities that do not adequately compete with degree programmes and courses which do not meet student and workplace demand. Universities continuingly embracing entrepreneurship education question their current norms, beliefs, and values through the lens of student aspiration and entrepreneurial identity: What is happening in the world around us? What is required from society? How can we act? In duly responding to these questions, a balance must be met between providing first-class education and providing regular opportunity for students to interact with industry and business in action. An entrepreneurial message is then set, to which researchers and educators are supported and championed. Passionate entrepreneurship education must be believed, so an agenda that rings true up and down and across the institution is beneficial. The modern structure of universities attempts to be proactive towards entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, it is with particular marketing and drive, within and ­outwith the university, that entrepreneurship education can grow and gather popularity—from both the educators and the students involved in the courses. Secondly, the influence of the classroom and its facilities should be acknowledged. Of course, it is anticipated that students will respond positively to education when it involves relevant experiences. Students powerfully react when it relates to them. For entrepreneurship education,

158 

R. J. Crammond

taught sessions are relevant when they are wholly representative and responsive to current business, and global, realities. Thirdly, incorporating a group scenario, or project-based set-up, puts the previous learning space consideration into practice. Variety in both the delivery and assessment moves this form of education away from didactic methods and broadens the relevancy of the topic to students, their own perspectives, and the real world. Finally, the fourth aspect is the utilisation of contemporary forms of digital and mobile platforms to boost entrepreneurial activity. Universities, students, and industry can now communicate faster, freely, and more so than ever before. Entrepreneurial learning is about being able to witness, recognise, and act upon a given, viable situation (Rae 2005). With this in mind, academics like Fayolle (2005) suggested new methods in assessing entrepreneurship education programmes. These involve witnessing the changes in delivering entrepreneurship education towards encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour and intentions. Fayolle et al. (2006) regard entrepreneurship education and relevant training as being able to greatly encourage entrepreneurialism amongst students (Kolvereid and Moen 1997; Tkachev and Kolvereid 1999; Fayolle 2007). Many researchers found that there was a positive impact, which would contribute to the increased possibility of future entrepreneurial activity. Significantly, there are noted differences concerning some students who engage in entrepreneurship modules and programmes and those who have not or do not. In any case, the exposure to entrepreneurialism can be witnessed in many forms: by workshop, module, or longer-term programme (Dana 2011). It can be facilitated as core or optional modules, which are now delivered across many faculties (Hytti and O’Gorman 2004; Fetters et  al. 2010). Furthermore, the myriad of teaching methods have also been identified to illuminate entrepreneurial learning and practical experience, relaying real-world entrepreneurial contexts. Recognised types of assessment approaches, used in entrepreneurship education, include constructing and defending business reports, sometimes through pitch presentations. Workshops can include roundtable discussion with business mentors, and there are also opportunities to conduct business research involving the local, enterprising community.

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

159

These methods enable entrepreneurship education programmes to be successfully implemented in many geographic and educational contexts (Vesper and Gartner 1998; Brockhaus et  al. 2001). Course structures, however, ordinarily tend to follow a similar pattern involving contemplating new ventures, conducting some form of research, and presenting the business case. Somewhat Schumpeterian approaches, still witnessed within management and economics programmes, still rightly regard entrepreneurship as an innovative and market-destructing practice (Kirby 2003; Shane 2003). Entrepreneurial ideas, on a big and sudden scale, seek to destroy markets and industries. However, this view has been widely considered as distorted and unrealistically neglectful of the process and transformation that entrepreneurs, more often than not, experience. Other approaches in entrepreneurship education have viewed many historical and economic examples which aid in profiling individuals within entrepreneurial activities and practices (Binks et  al. 2006). Additionally, these aim to promote certain entrepreneurial qualities which align with the realisation of these potentially novel ideas (Laukkanen 2000; Jones and English 2004; Kuratko 2003, 2004). An encouragement towards a broader knowledge base and appreciation of the enterprising field, in practice, can then be realised, subsequently or hopefully increasing the number of entrepreneurs operating in the marketplace (Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Neck and Greene 2011; Ruskovaara and Pihkala 2013). Researchers have, now expectantly, stated that entrepreneurship education can unlock this potential amongst eager students (Lee et al. 2006). This possibility, within educational environments, suddenly becomes a realistic and viable opportunity. Expected during the 1990s, Gorman et al.’s (1997) extensive research of entrepreneurship and business education literature indicated that rigorous studies of the expanding field were required. Through its creation, it can be focused and presented in many different ways and to many different audiences (Kent 1990; Greene and Rice 2007). In general, though, it has been said that it should focus on contemplating and seeking these economic opportunities, possibly resulting in starting new businesses, and becoming eventually proficient in producing desired goods or delivering novel services into existing or emerging markets (Czuchry et  al. 2004; Matlay 2008). This is somewhat different from traditional, and

160 

R. J. Crammond

more rigid, business and strategic management studies (Casson 2003; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010; Daft 2011). Entrepreneurship education, in terms of topicality, does include classical and contemporary disciplines ranging from management, strategy, finance, costing and budgeting to law and legal studies, human resources and people management, and marketing (Peltier and Scovotti 2010). Programme leaders, and universities in general, now increasingly realise that the educational environment must shift to accommodate the needs of aspiring entrepreneurs and the modern student, within changing educational dynamics. This affects the learning outcomes stipulated, the type and structure of content delivered, and the overarching, pedagogical approaches which are underpinned and adapted to given cohorts and module scopes.

6.3 Learning Environments for Entrepreneurship Education The increase of entrepreneurial research and empirical investigation, concerning the educational context, encourages its ongoing teaching and active environments (Fiet 2000a). Relevant research must conduct this rigorous research, and bear in mind the importance of widespread entrepreneurial teaching across disciplines and schools, to prevent the content or aim of entrepreneurship courses from being fixed. Gibb (1993) for example produced a clearer, theoretical understanding of the teaching of entrepreneurship education and its required process, which incorporates entrepreneurship education, small business education and creation, industry training, and appreciating the sought-after entrepreneurial ­culture. However, distinct personality competencies including being proactive, showing initiative, and being alert to opportunities are greatly needed, but were previously regarded as being attributes that cannot be taught (Deakins and Freel 2012; Prestwich 2013). MacMillan et  al. (1985) and Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) also highlight that organisations, which should also now include universities, must reflect on macroeconomic factors and continuously seek guidance and information from consultants and entrepreneurs.

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

161

The emerging, ultimate aim of new and evolving universities around the world is to achieve entrepreneurial learning spaces and wider ecosystems respective to both their internal and immediate environments (Fosu and Boateng 2013; The Royal Society of Edinburgh 2015; The Scottish Government 2016). These enterprising ecosystems include realistic and workable entrepreneurial processes where conventional styles of teaching, practical experiential learning, and teaching through informative empirical research involve many of these external stakeholders. This alignment would, hopefully, result in industrial partnerships and graduate company creation and academic spinout agreements (Fetters et al. 2010; Kitagawa et al. 2015). The rise in surrounding educational activities related to entrepreneurship enforces a productive and multidisciplinary culture, which should be an advantage to practical and contemporary universities (EC 2008, 2012, 2015; Volkmann et al. 2009). Largely, this activity must however invite expertise from the external environment, including business support. The responsibility now rests with institutions to pivot their resources to engage with this external environment. This can be done primarily through many departments that focus on career guidance for students, employability support for recent graduates, and entrepreneurial advice. These types of departments and groups should aim to provide real-world information and ongoing mentoring for students and recent alumni. This should be in addition to the certificated classes within degree programmes, whether it be by a core or optional module route (Prestwich 2013; Gimmon 2014). The support, ultimately, should encourage productive discussion with students in order to ascertain their career ambitions, and any new start-up ideas. This enriches the concept of learning spaces for entrepreneurship education. With this teaching and surrounding mentoring framework, values of entrepreneurship education are not dissimilar to that seen within further and vocational education such as preparing students for training, apprenticeship, or leading their own business (Jacobowitz and Vidler 1982; Keogh and Galloway 2004, 2006; Maritz and Brown 2013). Of course, traditional higher education, involving lectures and set course structures, are still prevalent. However, aspects of vocational education and progressive education have entered universities, towards producing creative,

162 

R. J. Crammond

innovative, and lateral-minded students, which can be evidenced through entrepreneurial courses. Noted increases in student satisfaction reinforces and asserts an enterprise agenda, focusing on industry, thus vindicating and confidently placing entrepreneurship education within the image of a new university. In short, universities are becoming more flexible towards the student and industry need. Entrepreneurial activity can now be seen within the classroom dynamic and culture. This vibrant and purposive environment from increasingly entrepreneurial universities strengthens student autonomy and industry-minded individuals (Jones and Iredale 2010; Blenker et al. 2012). Entrepreneurs or small business owners are commonly seeking business support and advice with their already existing small businesses, including independent trades and other forms of employment that students are taught and facilitated with at further education levels. This introduces an argument that entrepreneurship education is not theoretically robust or rigorous enough to be implemented at university level by some opponents of the concept, philosophy, and practice of entrepreneurship education. Additionally, a significant number of students regard higher education as a means to earn increased salaries with more secure employment than what an entrepreneurial lifestyle may provide. Nevertheless, the practical and personally developing aim of entrepreneurship education continues to add to the journey of students through higher education. The opportunity for students to develop or establish their own entrepreneurial mindset through potential and viable products and services vindicates the inclusion of entrepreneurship education within higher education. An intensified, globalised economy and multicultural society, which impacts on twenty-first-century entrepreneurial behaviours, is reflected by the innovative and student-driven e­ nvironments now witnessed within universities (Katz 2003; Shane 2003; Matlay 2005; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). In meeting the expectations of society, universities and businesses must enable entrepreneurialism to thrive (Fletcher 1999; Edwards and Muir 2005; Mautner 2005; Smith 2008; Taatila 2010). They must listen to, and respond to, the new types of entrepreneurs and their needs (Gartner 1985; Matlay 2008). In the past, though, programmes have been predominantly aimed at those who are expected to establish their

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

163

own business in any circumstance (Kent 1990; Fayolle 2005; Fayolle et  al. 2006). However, more recent developments introduce situations and experiences relevant to students (Rasmussen and Sørheim 2006) and stress the value of experiential learning (Fiet 2000b). According to many scholars, entrepreneurship education concerns teaching approaches which highlight understandings about the subject, and assist in the promotion of entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship education therefore should facilitate environments which support career and professional development, and present a contemporary and entrepreneurial way of examining situations (Fiet 2000a, b; Rae and Carswell 2001; Pittaway and Cope 2007). Cultural aspects, bridged with considering behaviours, are now central to entrepreneurship studies (Gibb 2002). Previously dominant concepts of new venture creation and management, business plan reporting, idolising economic growth and commercial innovation have been partly replaced with how entrepreneurs live in reality, work day to day, and learn in volatile markets, through scenario role playing and a variety of practical learning activities involving simulation (see Rae 2004, 2005; Gibb et al. 2007). The success of this form of education has allowed educational researchers and willing universities the opportunity to reflect on how these courses and approaches have been received by educators, students, departments, and societies (Brockhaus 1993; Fayolle and Gailly 2004; Fayolle 2005; Fayolle et al. 2005). This feedback to feedforward exercise highlights pedagogical issues which impact further development, delivery, and subject-to-course aim parameters over a period of time (Brockhaus 1993). In the twenty-first century, the number of colleges and universities that deliver and support entrepreneurship education has now reached many thousands (Katz 2003). This shift towards the representation of new, educational ideals for the twenty-first-century higher education institution reinforces the importance of the empowering of independent and skilled students towards entrepreneurialism. Anyone can become an entrepreneur, given the appropriate financial, industrial, and economic circumstances. Entrepreneurs, though, for many reasons that can restrict them, are driven by potential freedom and personal autonomy, as well as the chance to become wealthy and self-sustainable (Bicknell et al. 2010).

164 

R. J. Crammond

The advent of this shift in ideology can, therefore, result in more purposive, entrepreneurial experiences and valued engagement with university and business networks (Kolvereid and Moen 1997; Matlay 2011). The concept of entrepreneurial motivation and the need to succeed, for example, has also been long regarded as one of the central indicators of potential success, and has since been a mainstay topic in related research since the 1960s (McClelland 1961, 1965; Palmer 1971; Hofstede 1980; Lachman 1980; Lee 1997). The level of motivation hinges on environmental situations and personal circumstances, which leads to different decisions being made by the entrepreneur, affecting risk, market success, and subsequent action (Palmer 1971). Entrepreneurial behaviour, in general, includes having the necessary capability and possessing this ever-present motivation (Olson and Bosserman 1984; Shane 2003; Fayolle 2005). Seeking support from relevant bodies can heighten these behaviours and attributes (Gibb and Ritchie 1982 in Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Llewellyn and Wilson (2003) assessed entrepreneurial activity by reviewing aspects of personality and entrepreneurial intention through the psychological lens of the entrepreneur. Psychologically, entrepreneurs habitually comprehend the potentially positive and negative changes to their lives, based on the market and feasibility of their ideas or projects. As research advances in documenting such contributing traits and the nurturing of these personalities, it has been recorded that many entrepreneurs feel it is a wholly natural experience regardless of scenario or context (Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Bolton and Thompson 2004; Barbosa et al. 2007). Peterman and Kennedy (2003), for example, consider many push and pull variables which can drive individuals towards or divert them away from new businesses being established, including this s­ elf-­reflection of personality (McClelland 1961; Brockhaus 1980, 1982). As expected, the likelihood of students being more motivated towards enterprising activities is increased when they receive entrepreneurship education and relevant business support (Turker and Selcuk 2009). However, the occasional lack of enthusiasm from students to take that leap of faith still counters this positive assertion. McClelland’s ‘Theory of Achievement’ states three motives for accomplishing something of importance and value: a need to achieve, realising an affiliation, and asserting some form of power. David McClelland (1917–1988) considers entrepreneurial

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

165

individuals as those who wish for better economic fortune and aim to thrive amidst uncertainty. Entrepreneurs, when considering power, seek this internal locus of control (Rotter 1966), sustained self-sufficiency (Caird 1991; Cromie and O’Donaghue 1992), and accommodate obscurity and levels of volatility and risk (Brockhaus 1980). As described, the acknowledgement of many other disciplines related to entrepreneurialism such as sociology, psychology, and anthropology within entrepreneurship research has continuously and actively played an important role in the advancement of entrepreneurship research and our understandings of entrepreneurs, as people, beyond the business perspective (De Vries 1977; Hornaday and Wheatley 1986; Sexton and Bowman 1986; Begley and Boyd 1987). Research has sought to understand the entrepreneurial psyche in appreciating how people become entrepreneurs and flourish within society (Krueger 2002; Lynch 2006). Krueger (2002) stated that this entrepreneurial essence was the quest to take advantage of commercial gaps in the market. Studies list the many reasons, factors, and justifications as to why an individual chooses to become an entrepreneur (Jack and Anderson 1999; Shane et al. 2003). These can involve a natural progression into the lifestyle or through a history of family business, taking advantage of a novel idea that potentially manifested circumstantially, or as a necessity in order to support a required income and livelihood (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Weber 2012). In the 1980s, studies stated that less than 50% of entrepreneurs started their business in the given sector in which they were employed (Cooper 1980). It is clear that individuals who possess entrepreneurial traits can be widespread within sectors and communities; it is, however, a matter of o­ pportunity or the presence of push factors towards it that can instigate such actions.

6.4 Digitising and Mobilising Entrepreneurship Education: Empowering Students Encouraging the student journey, with regard to enterprise, is now increasingly marketed by institutions and university leaders as vitally important (Gimmon 2014). Since the notable introduction of entrepreneurship

166 

R. J. Crammond

education during the 1980s, entrepreneurial activity is now witnessed across many if not all higher education institutions around the world (Katz 2003). This is due to, as stated in other chapters, the competitively driven demand to provide students with more unique career choices and the opportunity for these students to widen their skill sets and gain necessary experience. Our awareness of entrepreneurial behaviour, identity, and spectrum of profiles is in abundance. Direct and indirect stakeholders of entrepreneurship education are now more in contact with students, depending on university participation. Since ideals of creative destruction and opportunity exploitation, the entrepreneurial profile has been able to transcend many walks of life into organisations, societies, and developed nations. Greater appreciation of entrepreneurial behaviour not only recognises the individuals who relate to this notion of a free market economy, but also endorses such enterprising activity on a wider, inclusive scale. Progressive forms of digitised and mobilised entrepreneurship education provide an appropriate platform, situated in educational and extracurricular environments, for witnessing the entrepreneurial journey (Jones 2011, 2013). This journey primarily involves initial classroom activities (conventional lectures and tutorials), involvement in entrepreneurial practices (simulated independent or group exercises), and exposure to the existing institutional or industry network (HEI business links) or entrepreneurial ecosystem (entrepreneurially specific events and regular engagements) (Cooper et al. 2004; Fayolle 2007; Ruskovaara and Pihkala 2013). However, this must now be blended with online environments, which further reinforce entrepreneurship education. Students can create their own student-centric learning and build upon experiences through entrepreneurial modules, programmes, and enterprise-related occasions (Jones and Iredale 2010; Jones 2011, 2013; Blenker et al. 2012). Statistical and exploratory evidence suggests that students are positively influenced by idea generation and/or venture creation processes portrayed through entrepreneurship education programmes, when considering prospective entrepreneurial opportunity and intention. As a result, the subsequent career aspirations and post-certificate directions of entrepreneurial graduates are more varied and considerably widened due to greater platforms and opportunities to engage. With a constant wave of new and subsidiary technologies being produced by creative

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

167

individuals, considerable educational research in the past 20 years has addressed many types of entrepreneurial activity and the qualities they acquire or are deemed necessary to thrive in innovative environments. This includes educational platforms, business to university partnerships, and online methods of learning and assessment. With a spectrum of the variety of entrepreneurs widening, perceptions stated in literary definitions of the field and these people involved are increasingly dispelled. Instead, the now central concept of the entrepreneurial process, which dictates the functionality of the entrepreneur, has subsequent, considerable bearing on the cognitive behaviour, personality, and emotional state of entrepreneurs. Factors such as these have introduced surrounding fields of research, such as psychology, sociology, and business management, to successfully add to the growing literature and validate the complex and multifaceted being that the entrepreneur becomes or actively aspires to become.

6.5 Entrepreneurship Education and Collaboration: European Frontiers The growing introduction and advancement of these entrepreneurship education programmes, across many continents and levels of education, has witnessed numerous attempts to greater refine assumptions and definitions of entrepreneurship, theorising related concepts for a wider audience (McMullan and Long 1987; Bygrave and Hofer 1991; Cunningham and Lischeron 1991; Hytti and O’Gorman 2004, Hytti and O’Gorman 2004, Hannon 2006, Matlay 2006a, b). This, however, as Fiet (2000a, b) addresses, produces distinct theoretical and pedagogical debate. Issues of adequate delivery (Jones and Iredale 2010; Blenker et al. 2012), its ongoing and resultant benefits (Hynes 1996; Pittaway and Cope 2007; Jones 2010; Edwards and Muir 2012), and the intended audience has been an integral topic of discussion amongst central and more subversive literature (Henry et al. 2005a, b; Kuratko 2005). Today, however, governmental, international centres of research and European reporting have enabled a more visibly comparable and comfortable deepening of entrepreneurship education to be agreed upon. This reporting has included outlining

168 

R. J. Crammond

the entrenching of teaching strategies, widened topicality and relevancy, and utilising a myriad of approaches within schools, colleges, universities, and organisational training contexts. Numerous issues related to entrepreneurship education show both unity and disparity between academic and support staff, concerning aspects of delivery and support activities within universities. This ranges from the conveyed perspectives of entrepreneurship as contemporarily complimenting or destructing traditional universities, the business curriculum, the situation, the type of entrepreneurship education programmes offered being appropriate or scarce, and ambitious and cautious visions of the entrepreneurial university. An encouraging variety of enterprise-­related courses are available globally. Unequivocally, this provision of programmes at the time can be confidently associated with an institution’s respective environment, heritage, and core industries. However, this connection could arguably be of lesser importance as ­universities wish to promote wider, international links in attracting new students. During the mid to late 1990s, many entrepreneurial research centres, inhabited by influential academics, were commonplace amongst most business faculties globally. This was in response to related governmental reporting at the time, research interest, and as a forerunner or consequence to already existing enterprise-related programmes at undergraduate or postgraduate level. Within many disciplined schools and departments, related programmes have been created to allow for creative and innovative thinking to thrive for students holding graduate ambitions in many applicable sectors. The intervention of recent initiatives has underlined a conceived need for purposeful and valuable entrepreneurship education programmes to be generated from or maintained in current university activities. With this in mind, it does introduce the debate of whether a standardised, one-size fits all approach or an entrepreneurship education programme relative to its educational environment is the best way forward for countries. Current institutional research shows that successful completion of institutionally distinctive entrepreneurship education programmes has led to an enhancement of a student’s personal and interpersonal skill set, widening career aspiration and destination. Examples of national entrepreneurialism, in centuries gone by, show the level of unique invention and innovation that has taken place. For example, from technology to healthcare and medicine, transport, building

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

169

infrastructure, education and banking systems, many countries have led the way in showing the rest of the world what can be done with creative and passionate forward thinking, in given sectors. Fact Box 9 Research has shown that 20% of individuals who have engaged in entrepreneurship-­related start-up initiatives or courses go on to establish their own company. This is five times the general rate. (European Commission 2019)

Demand or necessity in  local areas can force entrepreneurialism. This has led to more accessible routes towards small business ownership, via governmental or university intervention, as both regard entrepreneurship as positively contributing to the success of regions socially and economically.

6.5.1 E  ntrepreneurship Education Post-Brexit: What Now for the United Kingdom and Europe? The European Union (EU) referendum has resulted in unprecedented economic uncertainty for the United Kingdom. The vote for the United Kingdom to leave the EU will undoubtedly have a sizeable and significant effect on higher education. Students who regularly arrive from fellow nations of the EU may be economically prevented from studying in the United Kingdom, and current EU students at British universities are already fearful of the prospect of feeling unwelcome within, and feeling unworthy of, the country’s education system. Potential repercussions of the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU on entrepreneurship education programmes and entrepreneurial activity within higher education institutions include the following: Decreased EU student registration • Exchange initiatives, such as ERASMUS • Research activity reduced (affecting globally influential projects, such as Horizon 2020)

170 

R. J. Crammond

Reduced EU funding for universities • Increased financial instability and downgrading/removal of services Indefinite HEI restructuring • ‘Cost-cutting’ and departmental ‘streamlining’ Reduced resources • Surplus to requirement • Undesirable projects and initiatives Decline in student diversity • Absent ‘push and pull’ factors for international student population Smaller HEI ecosystem • Weakened international network(s) Keeping these factors in mind, the opportunity for universities to then educate, develop, and produce enthusiastic, European entrepreneurs from their inclusive and integrative entrepreneurship education programmes will be dramatically affected. Future enrolment and registration data may reveal a dramatic fall in international students who do not wish to study at a British university. Institutions should then expect to feel the effects of lower financial returns from international tuition fees and related receipts such as student accommodation costs. A knock-on effect shall also be seen in the local communities, immediately surrounding these institutions. Support staff focusing on the registration of international students will also be streamlined, with related services downsized. Entrepreneurship education programmes thrive on the success of previous cohorts. A contributing factor of this is the diverse and international student body that participates. Evidence from participants of empirical studies speaks of a number of success stories which span many countries, involving graduate entrepreneurs of

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

171

many nationalities. The result of the June 2016 referendum will unfortunately have a profoundly negative effect on the fate of higher education programmes, including entrepreneurship education–related courses. Globally significant events such as these increase the notion that a sufficient enterprise strategy for maintaining and emerging entrepreneurship education and activity should be in place within universities. This present concern with regard to the advancement of teaching and supporting entrepreneurship education is the level of sustained collaboration between the United Kingdom and Europe. This includes the ­cohesion and ongoing agreement between industries and national governments, as well as between the universities themselves. Recent developments within the parliaments of many European nations have resulted in a distinct level of volatility and uncertainty for its people, businesses, and international communities in general. Educationally based partnerships and initiatives, which flourish within the European community, are at odds with the changing perspectives and moods of European citizens. Of course, the most prominent example amongst these is the United Kingdom’s forthcoming exit from the EU, after the referendum result of 2016. This exit from the EU, commonly referred to as Brexit was obviously due to voters considering a number of factors which impact on their lives. However, education was not generally at the forefront of these discussions prior to the referendum vote. The leave result, with just over 51% of the vote, is likely to impact on higher education in many ways, with the universities, academics, and students of the United Kingdom bearing the brunt. Apart from the online availability of conceptual and empirical research, published governmental reporting, and viewable outlines of teaching methods and pedagogies, opportunities to work closely in progressing entrepreneurship education will be affected. Examples include developing the pooling and sharing of resources; acquiring sufficient grant funding and undertaking research project opportunities; continuing initiatives which promote student and academic exchanges, between institutions; performing comparable exercises focusing on the embedding of enterprising methods; being aware of the transferrable skill sets within continental European industries and workplaces; and witnessing the expected practices of nascent and aspiring entrepreneurs within European nations.

172 

R. J. Crammond

Entrepreneurship education is widely embraced across Europe’s universities. There are many examples of a myriad of approaches in action. These include notable evidence from the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Sweden, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and many more. Scholars and educators, within these countries, undoubtedly benefit from the European community and its opportunity for cooperative investigation and reporting. In addition to the pooling and sharing of teaching and research resources through aspects of delivery, course content, and assessment, the European community has, in recent years, enabled key entrepreneurship education research and commission-endorsed publications to push the enterprising agenda forward. This unified approach results in a strong educational message to all members of the EU, which supports inclusivity. With the many political fallouts and events since the referendum, which has changed the constitutional, economic, and societal make-up of many nations forever, the enduring Brexit saga has now created a notable and inescapable crossroads within the European and higher education context. Universities of the United Kingdom are now at risk of losing talent, resources, and capability, as well as missing out on the many educational opportunities that Europe has to offer. It will, no doubt, be a number of years before the true impact of Brexit on entrepreneurship education within the United Kingdom and Europe will be realised. However, the ideas and workable strategies, from influencers identified within this book, must be encouraged and elevated in order for the expected issues and hurdles of post-Brexit entrepreneurship education to be limited and overcome.

Case Study V: The University and Brexit: Academic Discussions The ‘B’ word mentioned earlier has been unavoidable since 2016. Not a day goes by without it being mentioned in the media or in casual conversation. Unfortunately, since electioneering started, it has divided families, workplaces, and the country in general. The immeasurable impact that Brexit will have will of course affect the higher educational context also. Discussions at a national level, within government, and amongst numerous educational bodies have taken place. This has also led to universities

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

173

releasing their own statements regarding the effect that it will have on their own institutions. This chapter, outwith this case study, acknowledges this impact in more detail. In my experience, colleagues have expressed concern with developments as Brexit looms. They have highlighted a number of areas in conversation which create unease for universities going forward: • • • •

Reduced class sizes (Erasmus etc.) Limited, international research funding and collaboration Winding down of summer school and international engagement events Falling enrolment numbers: for example, postgraduate taught and research students

It is likely that courses will lose cohorts of students from late 2019 onwards, resulting in many programmes being discontinued. Now, consider the following: Q1) Q2)

What are your main concerns for the future of entrepreneurship education, small business success, or graduate employability? In your opinion, what solutions could help with these particular concerns?

6.6 Envisaging Entrepreneurship Education Futures As entrepreneurship education advances, this chapter appreciates the physical, digital, and mobile forms of learning and teaching for entrepreneurialism. Fact Box 10 The European Commission’s ‘Entrepreneurship Education: A Guide for Educators’ document of 2014 showcases the many exciting and inspiring practices, with contributions from 170 delegates from over 30 countries.

Figure 6.1 brings together these features of modern learning, for enterprise, with the book’s own considered aspects towards the progression of entrepreneurship education: capacity, capability, mobility, and durability.

Fig. 6.1  Entrepreneurship education futures: cultural considerations

174  R. J. Crammond

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

175

Awareness, reflection, and action concerning these will aid in this contextual advancement and cultural development within entrepreneurial universities. What Does This Mean? This concept illustrates the impact and benefits of the various aspects of capital and considerations, in practice. These are noted with the following headings: Individual/Group Capacity, Physical Capability, Digital Mobility, and Durability and Resilience. The power of the individual or group, given the appropriate resources and support, can lead to the transformation of entrepreneurially relevant learning spaces. This contributes to universities being physically able to suitably facilitate enterprise or entrepreneurship education. Through digitised and virtual platforms, the learning environment becomes more accessible, and both nationally and internationally mobile. This further validates entrepreneurialism as an inclusive life choice, in both academic and working life. Universities must embrace change. With change regrettably comes volatility. This, however, can present new challenges and opportunities. One of which is reassessing the immediate and wider communities and engaging with the present student and market need, for example. What Are the Practical Implications? This chapter presents the final, conceptual model of this book. The Entrepreneurship Education Futures process model contributes towards a summary of the key conclusions of this book. These are detailed further in the next chapter. When educators and universities, in general, attempt to reimagine and revamp their institutions, new elements of the immediate and distant environments must be considered. These include aspects of teaching practice, societal relevancy, and innovative practices for business. These are just some examples of points of discussion which relate to multiple stakeholders within and outwith university. These stakeholders can debate and share ideas, which can move the institution forward. This cultural appreciation of the university context,

176 

R. J. Crammond

for teaching entrepreneurship, can be highlighted further with some of the worksheets enclosed within the appendix of this book. These primarily concern appendices E, F, and G.

6.7 Conclusion As I said at the beginning of this chapter, universities have now become creative stages. A place where lives can change and opportunities are seized. This is partly down to a few factors which have impacted the educational environment. Firstly, the myriad of acceptable, and now welcomed, teaching styles. Notions of student-centric, or ‘flipped’, classrooms where students can direct the session’s proceedings are now especially commonplace amongst new programmes in more entrepreneurial universities. For entrepreneurship education, this is evidenced by the incubation style set-up within many courses. Students who are more often in groups are able to map out their entrepreneurial journey with the assistance of educators and resources. In my personal experience, this has proved very fruitful. Secondly, in this pursuit to reflect business realities, a broad church of academic personalities is required. Experienced entrepreneurs and small business owners, for example, all complement this must-desired entrepreneurship ecosystem. Thirdly, there is an increased awareness of institutions, in the twenty-­ first century, to timely respond to student, industry, and market needs. This act to respond may also be due to instances of local and national government intervention. The result of all of this is a productive environment, where realistic and purposive entrepreneurship education can prosper. This chapter presents new ideals and constructs for twenty-first-­ century, pragmatic education. The modernisation of learning spaces and digitised education pushes institutions to progress entrepreneurship education across universities and beyond. The societal and industrial benefits of bringing education into the real world, through a variety of new methods, further align with the entrepreneurial mindset. This also practically addresses student aspiration and opportunity, improving links with

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

177

employers and business support organisations. These developments redefine the classroom, the educator, and universities. As per Fig. 1.1, this chapter visits the following question: Q3.

How can we, as educators, students, and supportive individuals and groups, advance entrepreneurship education within the classroom environment?

Author’s Response With increasing examples of entrepreneurship education courses, programmes, and workshops being witnessed, this brings with it stories, anecdotal evidence, and crucially  – empirical data. This application of key findings from the university context should subsequently strengthen efforts made and validate further the purpose of this form of education. Additionally, regarding and respecting a student’s progression through university also as a personal and professional journey highlights the importance of engagement, compassion, responsibility, and opportunity with regard to their career and/or entrepreneurial ambitions. A top-down message from principals and senior management, which should be permeated towards all corners of the institution, empowers the entrepreneurship educator through increased vindication, endorsed autonomy, and bestowed responsibility. With the exciting approaches to the discipline of entrepreneurship now the reality across most institutions worldwide, the onus rests on university leaders to sustain the conditions upon which entrepreneurship education can thrive and prosper. In the final chapter of this book, concluding thoughts and comments are discussed about moving the teaching and support of entrepreneurship education forward in universities.

References Barbosa, S. D., Gerhardt, M. W. and Kickul, J. R. (2007) ‘The role of cognitive style and risk preference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions’. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Vol.13(4), pp. 86–104.

178 

R. J. Crammond

Begley, T. M. and Boyd, D. P. (1987) ‘A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small business firms’. Journal of Management. Vol.13(1), pp. 99–108. Bicknell, A., Francis-Smythe, J. and Arthur, J. (2010) ‘Knowledge transfer: de-­ constructing the entrepreneurial academic’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.16(6), pp. 485–501. Binks, M., Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education and the business school’. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Vol.18(1), pp. 1–18. Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S.  H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., and Thrane, C. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(6), pp. 417–430. Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2004) Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Brockhaus, R. H. (1980) ‘Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs’. Academy of Management Journal. Vol.23(3), pp. 509–520. Brockhaus, R. H. (1982) ‘The psychology of the entrepreneur’. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. pp. 39–57. Brockhaus, R.  H., Hills, G.  E., Klandt, H. and Welsch, H.  P. (Eds.) (2001) Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Brockhaus, R.H. (1993) ‘Entrepreneurship education: A research agenda’. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.1, p. 913. Buchanan, D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Bygrave, W. D. and Hofer, C. W. (1991) ‘Theorizing about entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.16(2), pp. 13–22. Caird, S. (1991) ‘The enterprising tendency of occupational groups’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.9(4), pp. 75–81. Casson, M. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship, business culture and the theory of the firm’. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. (pp. 223–246). California: Springer US. Cooper, A.C. (1980) ‘Entrepreneurship-small business interface’. Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences. Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University. Cooper, S., Bottomley, C. and Gordon, J. (2004) ‘Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.18(1), pp. 11–22.

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

179

Cromie, S. and O’Donaghue, J. (1992) ‘Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.10(2), pp. 66–73. Cunningham, J.  B. and Lischeron, J. (1991) ‘Defining entrepreneurship’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.29(1), pp. 45–61. Czuchry, A., Yasin, M. and Gonzales, M. (2004) ‘Effective entrepreneurial education: a framework for innovation and implementation’. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Vol.7(1), pp. 39–56. Daft, R.  L. (2011) The New Era of Management. International ed. Ohio: Thomson South-Western. Dana, L.  P. (2011) World Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. De Vries, M. F. R. (1977) ‘The entrepreneurial personality: a person at the crossroads’. Journal of Management Studies. Vol.14(1), pp. 34–57. Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (2012) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms. 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Edwards, L.  J. and Muir, E.  J. (2005) ‘Promoting entrepreneurship at the University of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 613–626. Edwards, L. J. and Muir, E. J. (2012) ‘Evaluating enterprise education: why do it?’. Education and Training. Vol.54(4), pp. 278–290. European Commission (2008) Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies. Final Report of the Expert Group. Enterprise and Industry, March 2008. European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012. European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fayolle, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’ International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Vol.2(1), pp. 89–98. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2007) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: A general perspective. (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2004) ‘Using the theory of planned behaviour to assess entrepreneurship teaching programs: a first experimentation’. IntEnt2004 Conference, Naples (Italy), 5–7 July, 2004.

180 

R. J. Crammond

Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) (Eds.) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) ‘Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.30(9), pp. 701–720. Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P. and Ulijn, J. M. (Eds.) (2005) Entrepreneurship research in Europe: outcomes and perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fetters, M., Greene, P. G. and Rice, M. P. (Eds.). (2010) The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Fiet, J. O. (2000a) ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.16(1), pp. 1–24. Fiet, J. O. (2000b) ‘The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.16(2), pp. 101–117. Fletcher, M. (1999) ‘Promoting entrepreneurship as a career option-the graduate enterprise programme’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.23(3), pp. 127–139. Fosu, R. and Boateng, R. E. (2013) ‘The Scottish university level entrepreneurship education initiative: Lessons for Ghana in dealing with graduate unemployment’. Journal of Education and Practice. Vol.4(24), pp. 143–151. Gartner, W. B. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.10(4), pp. 696–706. 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. Vol.4(3), pp. 233–269. Gibb, A. A. (1993) ‘Enterprise culture and education understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.11(3), pp. 11–34. Gibb, A. and Ritchie, J. (1982) ‘Understanding the process of starting small businesses’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.1(1), pp. 26–45. Gibb, A., Hannon, P., Price, A. and Robertson, I. (2007) ‘A compendium of pedagogies for teaching entrepreneurship’. [Online], International Entrepreneurship Education Programme, http://ieeponline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Wider-reading-draft-Ped-Note-compendium.pdf. [Accessed: 5 October 2015] Gimmon, E. (2014) ‘Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.56(8/9), pp. 814–825.

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

181

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997) ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.15(3), pp. 56–77. Greene, P. G., and Rice, M. P. (Eds.) (2007) Entrepreneurship Education. (Vol. 9). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hannon, P. (2006) ‘Teaching pigeons to dance: sense and meaning in entrepreneurship education’. Education + Training. Vol.48(5), pp. 296–308. Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005a) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I’. Education and Training. Vol.47(2), pp. 98–111. Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005b) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II’. Education and Training. Vol.47(3), pp. 158–169. Hofstede, G. (1980). ‘Culture and organizations’. International Studies of Management and Organisation. pp. 15–41. Hornaday, R. W. and Wheatley, W. J. (1986) ‘Managerial characteristics and the financial performance of small business’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.24(2), pp. 1–7. Hynes, B. (1996) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training-introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.20(8), pp. 10–17. Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004) ‘What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries’. Education and Training. Vol.46(1), pp. 11–23. Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A. R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.5(3), pp. 110–125. Jacobowitz, A. and Vidler, D.C. (1982) ‘Characteristics of entrepreneurs: Implications for vocational guidance’. Vocational Guidance Quarterly. Vol.30(3), pp. 252–257. Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2010) ‘Enterprise education as pedagogy’. Education and Training. Vol.52(1), pp. 7–19. Jones, C. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurship education: Revisiting our role and its purpose’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4), pp. 500–513. Jones, C. (2011) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

182 

R. J. Crammond

Jones, C. (2013) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Jones, C. and English, J. (2004) ‘A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education’. Education and Training. Vol.46(8/9), pp. 416–423. Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(2), pp. 283–300. Kent, C.  A. (Ed.). (1990) Entrepreneurship Education: Current Developments, Future Directions. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Keogh, W. and Galloway, L. (2004) ‘Teaching enterprise in vocational disciplines: reflecting on positive experience’. Management Decision. Vol.42(3/4), pp. 531–541. Keogh, W. and Galloway, L. (2006) ‘The role and application of enterprise education in higher vocational study: an engineering case study’. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning. Vol.16(5), pp. 392–399. Kirby, D. A. (2003) Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kitagawa, F., Webber, D.J., Plumridge, A. and Robertson, S. (2015) ‘University entrepreneurship education experiences: enhancing the entrepreneurial ecosystems in a UK city-region’. In The 8 th International Conference for Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Regional Development (p. 794). Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.21(4), pp. 154–160. Krueger Jr, N.  F. (2002) ‘The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship.’ In Handbook of entrepreneurship research. (pp. 105–140). Springer US. Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994) ‘Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs’. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. Vol.18, pp. 91–91. Kuratko, D. F. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century’. White Paper. US Association of Small Business Education. Kuratko, D. F. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the 21st century: From legitimization to leadership’. USASBE National Conference. January, pp. 1–16. Kuratko, D. F. (2005) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.29(5), pp. 577–598. Lachman, R. (1980) ‘Toward measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies’. Management International Review. pp. 108–116.

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

183

Laukkanen, M. (2000) ‘Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.12(1), pp. 25–47. Lee, J. (1997) ‘The motivation of women entrepreneurs in Singapore’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.3(2), pp. 93–110. Lee, S. M., Lim, S. B., Pathak, R. D., Chang, D. and Li, W. (2006) ‘Influences on students attitudes toward entrepreneurship: a multi-country study’. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Vol.2(3), pp. 351–366. Llewellyn, D. J. and Wilson, K. M. (2003) ‘The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology’. Education and Training. Vol.45(6), pp. 341–345. Lynch, R. (2006) Corporate Strategy. 4th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R. and Subba Narasimha, P. N. (1985) ‘Criteria used by Venture Capitalists to Evaluate New Venture Proposals’. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.1, pp. 119–128. Maritz, A. and Brown, C. (2013) ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy through vocational entrepreneurship education programmes’. Journal of Vocational Education and Management. Vol.4(1), pp. 5–16. Matlay, H. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 627–643. Matlay, H. (2006a) ‘Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(5). Matlay, H. (2006b) ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(8/9), pp. 704–718. Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 382–396. Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182. Mautner, G. (2005) ‘The entrepreneurial university: A discursive profile of a higher education buzzword’. Critical Discourse Studies. Vol.2(2), pp. 95–120.

184 

R. J. Crammond

McClelland, D. C. (1961) ‘Entrepreneurial behaviour’. In McClelland, D.C., 1965. N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol.1(4), pp. 389. McClelland, D. C. (1965) ‘Achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol.1(4), pp. 389–392. McMullan, W. and Long, W.  A. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the nineties’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.2(3), pp. 261–275 Neck, H.  M. and Greene, P.  G. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.49(1), pp. 55–70. Olson, P.  D. and Bosserman, D.  A. (1984) ‘Attributes of the entrepreneurial type’. Business Horizons. Vol.27(3), pp. 53–56. Palmer, M. (1971) ‘The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential’. California Management Review. Vol.13(3), pp. 32–38. Peltier, J.  W. and Scovotti, C. (2010) ‘Enhancing entrepreneurial marketing education: the student perspective’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.17(4), pp. 514–536. Peterman, N. E. and Kennedy, J. (2003) ‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship theory and practice. Vol.28(2), pp. 129–144. Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007) ‘Entrepreneurship Education A Systematic Review of the Evidence’. International Small Business Journal. Vol.25(5), pp. 479–510. Prestwich, G.  D. (2013). ‘Culture of impact: Faculty as mentors for student entrepreneurs’. Science Translational Medicine. Vol.5(169), pp. 1–2. Rae, D. (2004) ‘Practical theories from entrepreneurs’ stories: discursive approaches to entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.11(2), pp. 195–202. Rae, D. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(3), pp. 323–335. Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2001) ‘Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.8(2), pp. 150–158. Rasmussen, E. A. and Sørheim, R. (2006) ‘Action-based entrepreneurship education’. Technovation. Vol.26(2), pp. 185–194. Rotter, J. B. (1966) ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’. Psychological monographs: General and applied. Vol.80(1), p. 1.

6  Entrepreneurship Education Futures and Learning Spaces 

185

Ruskovaara, E. and Pihkala, T. (2013) ‘Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: classroom practices’. Education and Training. Vol.55(2), pp. 204–216. Sexton, D. L. and Bowman, N. (1986) ‘The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.1(1), pp. 129–140. Shane, S.  A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-­ Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shane, S., Locke, E. A. and Collins, C. J. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial motivation’. Human Resource Management Review. Vol.13(2), pp. 257–279. Smith, K. (2008) ‘Embedding enterprise education into the curriculum at a research-led university’. Education and Training. Vol.50(8/9), pp. 713–724. Taatila, V. P. (2010) ‘Learning entrepreneurship in higher education’. Education and Training. Vol.52(1), pp. 48–61. The Royal Society of Edinburgh (2015) Entrepreneurial Education in Scotland. A Royal Society of Edinburgh Discussion Paper. Advice Paper 15, 9th June 2015. The Scottish Government. (2016) Enterprise and Skills Review: A Call for Evidence. July 2016. Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999) ‘Self-employment intentions among Russian students’. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Vol.11(3), pp. 269–280. Turker, D. and Selcuk, S. S. (2009) ‘Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.33(2), pp. 142–159. Vesper, K. and Gartner, W. (1998) University Entrepreneurship Programmes Worldwide. Los Angeles: The University of South Carolina. Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Marlotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009) Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative. Weber, R. (2012) Evaluating Entrepreneurship Education. Gabler Verlag.

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward for Teaching and Support

Institutional support, and boundless vision, strengthens the entrepreneurial endeavour. Robert James Crammond

7.1 Introduction The seismic impact of entrepreneurship education is now notable within most, if not all, universities around the world. It is wide-ranging in scope and scale, and well-voiced by many educators, business practitioners, and wider stakeholders (Beresford and Beresford 2010; Neck and Greene 2011; Aldrich 2012). Therefore, appropriate appreciation of this educational, industrial, and societal ripple effect is important in promoting enterprise, creativity, and inclusivity amidst the challenge of advancing this form of education (Fetters et al. 2010; Nelles and Vorley 2010a, b, 2011; Mason 2014). ‘Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support’ has established conceptual and practical routes towards introducing entrepreneurship education and towards

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_7

187

188 

R. J. Crammond

improving existing entrepreneurship education programmes in their creation, implementation, delivery, and support within universities. This includes conceptualising a renewed understanding of the responsibilities of both delivery and support individuals, outlining productive ways of continuous activity for delivery and support staff. Additionally, the contained worksheets and pedagogical guidelines for unique, institutional implementation of entrepreneurship education activities are stipulated, which culminates in new understandings of and practices relating to evolved enterprise or entrepreneurship education. This reinforces the creative and innovative classroom environment and encourages increased identification and engagement with relevant stakeholders and stakeholder groups. These developments contribute to effective entrepreneurship education overall, aid the proliferation of entrepreneurship-related programmes being delivered, and promote entrepreneurial activity being more widely supported within higher education institutions. As highlighted in Chap. 1, the book’s features provide additional information and exposure to entrepreneurship theory and practice, and its intervention within and throughout higher education. Acknowledging these features encourages a unique offering for the dynamic, enterprising classroom, towards enlightening, engaging, and imagining entrepreneurship education. This book opened with a chapter-by-chapter summary, and the importance of entrepreneurship education concepts and practical materials (the original worksheets) contained within the appendix. Chapters 2 and 3 discussed the origins of entrepreneurship, the what, how, and when of teaching entrepreneurship, and the current educational context internationally. Chapters 4 and 5 highlight the importance of surrounding institutions and stakeholders, in embracing an entrepreneurship culture and building an effective ecosystem. The penultimate chapter acknowledges the recent developments concerning entrepreneurship education within universities, and how this impacts these learning spaces towards the future. Having acknowledged the many issues surrounding entrepreneurship education, this chapter repeats the original motivation and central questions outlined at the start of this book. In addition, this chapter comments on future directions for the taught and researched field. This

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

189

includes reflecting on entrepreneurship education in theory, practice, and policy.

7.2 M  oving Entrepreneurship Education Forward: Considering a Desired Future The illustrative concepts have sought to embrace, reflect upon, and plan for a continued, unified message for entrepreneurship education within modern and inspirational universities. Individual courses and programmes should adopt advancements within the field, in reflecting current educational and business realities. In addition, multi-stakeholder roles for enterprising behaviour within university are indeed necessary. These roles and responsibilities reinforce the desire, and contribute to the hopeful intent, of universities that aim to regard student aspiration and achievement as the main priority. Ultimately, it is for each institution to uniquely embrace entrepreneurship education. However, issues and concerns such as Brexit, maintaining awareness of international research and valuable collaborations, seeking institutional funding, and dealing with economic changes all impact on how universities deliver and support entrepreneurship education. In pursuing an entrepreneurial university, higher educational bodies and groups must recruit and develop mutually determined delivery and support individuals for this evident stride towards an achievable goal of educational and entrepreneurial environments. The following four questions were originally outlined in the introductory chapter of this book. As indicated with the flow diagram in Chap. 1 (Fig. 1.1), the questions highlight the themes that surround and influence the chapters within this book. Q1

In being relevant, productive, and valuable, what does entrepreneurship education really mean?

Author’s Response Entrepreneurship education is about transforming individuals and improving the societal and business condition. The effects of entrepreneurial behav-

190 

R. J. Crammond

iour and activities equate to much more than business creation and supposed connotations of capitalism. Q2

What notable progressions, concerning entrepreneurship education, have already been witnessed?

Author’s Response A unified approach, involving many important stakeholders including the educators and researchers of entrepreneurship education themselves, to national and international governments, has resulted in positive and productive progress. Educational initiatives, working groups, publications, and practical frameworks, focusing on building competences and developing relevant skills, all improve the chances of entrepreneurial behaviour. These initiatives have been successful in establishing long-lasting links between institutions, across countries and continents, thus removing perceived barriers to enterprising education and creative and innovative opportunities. Q3

How can we, as educators, students, and supportive individuals and groups, advance entrepreneurship education within the classroom environment?

Author’s Response As discussed, with increasingly new examples of entrepreneurship education comes new information. Key findings from the university environment should strengthen the enterprise agenda within their own contexts. Also, respecting the student journey encourages levels of engagement, compassion, responsibility, and opportunity. Q4

What does the future hold for the relationship between entrepreneurship education and universities?

Author’s Response Of course, with surrounding factors which can affect education, universities, and entrepreneurship education, we must all prepare for and expect volatility and change. However, with this growing teaching and research community now evident, there is greater support and endorsement to maintain and grow

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

191

the discipline. With recorded instances of positive student engagement and satisfaction, further research collaboration and utilisation of teaching practices, which are focused on centralising entrepreneurship education, are expected. As I have expressed within the opening passage of this book, some of the most rewarding experiences that I have had from teaching in higher education have come from leading or being part of teaching teams of enterprise and entrepreneurship education classes. It is, as we know, a truly exciting and productive field to be engaged in. The worthy opportunity to listen to what the students regard as real solutions to real, societal problems allows creative, entrepreneurial activity and positive transformation to happen. The ensuing classroom dynamic, during any enterprise module or programme, witnesses a notable shift. During this, the students are centre stage, as they are involved in these practical activities and group workshop sessions. The individual or group-based decisions that are made directly impact on these distinct, entrepreneurial journeys. These are also influenced by the stipulated assessments, and voiced perspectives of enterprise. Generally speaking, students are reminded of the development of their own personal, interpersonal, professional, and enterprising skill sets. The latter here being something that many students may arguably not contemplate or encounter with other university modules undertaken, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. In essence, this form of education matters for reasons beyond the classroom. It exists for the lives of students, in improving them and their immediate environments. In the next few pages, I hereby list my own top ten ideals towards achieving a student-centric approach. However, these are not necessarily tips. With these in mind, they aim to encourage a pattern of behaviour during the student’s enterprise (skills acquisition–based) or ­entrepreneurial (new venture creation–based) journey which reflects business realities, within a connected entrepreneurial and higher education context.

192 

R. J. Crammond

7.2.1 Normalise Lateral Thinking Within any classroom environment, these types of workshop sessions or courses must allow the opportunity for students to push the envelope, in broadening their mind to discover productive and purposive solutions to societal problems (Jones 2011, 2013). This can then be evidenced through any resultant, profitable and ethically sound business activity.

7.2.2 Welcome the ‘Wacky’ As the students immerse themselves into these enterprising activities, they should be reminded that any process of generating ideas is a quest for solutions through realistic, feasible, and viable products and/or services. It is a quest to regenerate and improve current conditions. Therefore, primarily in the idea phase, and in the spirit of enterprise, there is no right or wrong answer. In inventing and innovating, an exciting process of ‘trial and error’ must occur. This is also the case when thinking, listing, and scrutinising relevant ideas.

7.2.3 Be the Mentor, ‘Prescribe Not Profess’ I strongly regard these many forms of enterprise-based modules to be some of the most exciting and rewarding courses you can undertake within higher education. As I have stated earlier, with this exposure to enterprise being crucially significant for the individual and those that can be affected by it, it must therefore be centred on not just teaching students but ascertaining, informing, and developing unique skill sets. Therefore, in the true spirit of entrepreneurialism, real ideas, true autonomy, and realising personal aspirations are key to achieving a student-­ centric environment (Gimmon 2014; EC 2012, 2015).

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

193

7.2.4 Underline the Importance of Autonomy As mentioned in the earlier point, even with regard to course assessment, students must feel free to test themselves. Besides attaining the expected, intellectual standard required to pass the module or programme, students must also be able to show initiative and justify the direction of their enterprising or business ideas. They must be their own bosses. They must be allowed to try and map out their own destiny.

7.2.5 Embrace the Process With each cohort that I have taught, I have witnessed many groups that have doubted their own ability. Some have unfortunately felt that their ideas were not that great, or doesn’t make sense. When you consider that regularly undertaking group work plays an integral part of university life, it can truly be an emotional rollercoaster for many. During the course of a day or afternoon workshop, or 15 weeks for a full module, nothing is going to be perfect; whatever perfect is! There are many bumps along the way, and this should be periodically reiterated to students. It must be said, however, that these groups that I am referring to went on to produce excellent business pitches and achieve well-deserved A grades upon completion.

7.2.6 Encourage Student Responsibility In reflecting these realities of business, time is well spent guiding students and ‘business idea’ groups to be 100% responsible for their enterprising ideas, and individual activities and formative or summative assessments. Aspects of improving the employability of graduates, budding entrepreneurialism, or future research activity within the relevant fields are further strengthened when students are exposed to real situations. These real situations are where they are in contact with real businesses, organisations, and stakeholders.

194 

R. J. Crammond

7.2.7 Develop the Enterprising Skills Creativity Innovation Problem Solving Market Awareness Negotiating Defending Forecasting Planning and Reviewing These are a few very broad, and well-discussed, examples of enterprising skills (Burns 2011). Nevertheless, how are these addressed within the classroom? What activities can be delivered? There are many publications from other enterprise educators and revered scholars, including lists and compendiums of workable pedagogies. These are also discussed within the chapters of this book, which aim to answer these questions.

7.2.8 ‘Keeping It Real’ Before starting a relevant module or programme, students will of course have had different experiences and exposure to enterprise or small business. Therefore, their university journeys will no doubt be different. They already possess different aims, different skill sets, and different motivations, which are all directed towards preferred activities and careers after graduation. Thus, besides handing students the ‘power’ in the classroom to take what they can from the dynamic enterprise sessions offered, educators should ensure that they understand the ambitions and set goals of individual students. These personal views, opinions, and entrepreneurial perspectives should then be visible in the ideas and work that they, and their groups, produce. Understanding, compassion, and motivation, shown from enterprise educators, are half the battle in truly achieving this student-centric and flipped classroom approach.

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

195

7.2.9 Asserting the ‘Business Defence’ Remember, these modules must still be assessed accordingly. Students must then be prepared for the good, the bad, and the ugly that can be encountered when others listen to or critique their entrepreneurial ideas or business models. Therefore, thematic sessions which encourage question and answer, scenario analysis, business critiques, and mock pitches should always form the foundation of any workshop or course outline.

7.2.10 W  hat’s the End Goal? Ascertaining the Student Aspiration As stated earlier, educators must be aware of the student’s aim and ongoing goals. Appreciating these aims and goals further highlights and supports a strong educator and student learner contract. What does real enterprise-driven change look like? What do you want to achieve in a module such as this? What skills do you wish to improve? These three questions further qualify the underlying notion that enterprising skills and entrepreneurial activity matters to us all. It matters because it emboldens students and the society around us. It considerably increases an individual’s confidence and self-awareness, providing them with personal and professional direction that can last a lifetime. The following sections recommend ways in which the advancing of entrepreneurship education can be witnessed: theoretically, practically, and politically.

7.3 Conceptualising Entrepreneurship Education for All A contributing factor to the advancement of entrepreneurship education within universities is the need to acquire new information and reflect on its implications. Educators and researchers must be able to reflect and generalise on these, in rightfully acknowledging progressions and developments within the classroom. Of course, differences in resource

196 

R. J. Crammond

a­ vailability, acquisition, and allocation impact greatly on the ability, and fortunes, of institutions in making substantial strides in entrepreneurship education. The following three examples highlight desired directions in advancing related concepts of entrepreneurship education:

7.3.1 External Data Acquisition In improving entrepreneurship education programmes and entrepreneurial activity within universities, empirical data and information must be periodically gathered from the immediate business communities of institutions. Along with increasing stakeholder engagement in  local enterprise, it allows researchers to collect new information that builds on the understanding of modern entrepreneurship in action. This shall ultimately lead to programme leaders of entrepreneurship education establishing various ways of adequately maintaining and improving their entrepreneurship education courses with valued contemporary and stakeholder-­relevant content.

7.3.2 Shared Ideas and Practice Implementation The discussion and assertions made within this book indicate a lack of collaboration concerning institutional research and its direct impact on the teaching of entrepreneurship education within higher education. Existing resources are underutilised and, therefore, underdeveloped. In response to this, ideas and practices should be shared, enhanced, and implemented. From this cycle of internal collaboration, interdisciplinary experiences, exploratory findings, and anecdotal feedback from students and external stakeholders can be internally realised and reviewed. This evaluation of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial activity heightens awareness of potential support and provides added value to entrepreneurship education programmes within given contexts.

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

197

7.3.3 R  etrospective Research of Entrepreneurship Education Activities Furthermore, it is recommended in this book that institutions must examine institutional activities of these ongoing changes in delivery and support, towards benefitting other institutions. A growing discipline, such as entrepreneurship education, requires deep and rich interrogation of its duties, activities, and responsibilities. This retrospective research should, ideally, include the review of internal operations related to entrepreneurship education, as well as that of other universities. Significant identification of entrepreneurship education–related stakeholders and their contributory activities, existing within the university and higher education sector in general, can then be determined towards conceived, optimal entrepreneurship education.

7.4 E  ntrepreneurship Education in Practice: Engaging and Enlightening Students A true reflection of how universities embrace and realise entrepreneurship education is in the delivery and support that it, as an educational institution, provides. The initial and overarching purpose, materials used, and subsequent entrepreneurial journey are core to the continued pedagogical success of the many vibrant forms of entrepreneurship education currently available within universities. The awareness and consideration of these improves effective and efficient engagement and enlightening of enterprise amongst students. Again, the following examples highlight how entrepreneurship education can continue to flourish in practice.

7.4.1 Communication and Institutional ‘Trust’ Idealistically, most, if not nearly all, business schools would endorse and adopt entrepreneurship education–related curricula within their programmes. This book, as mentioned earlier, explains that currently this is unfortunately not the case. A degree of trust from higher education

198 

R. J. Crammond

­ anagement and care and attention in the innovativeness from educators m are needed to adequately ensure entrepreneurship education prosperity and comparable legitimacy of the field. Evidence from empirical study indicates that ambitious visionaries within higher education, demonstrating trust between academic and management staff, have positively resulted in practical and varied forms of entrepreneurship education globally. As objectives such as those within university publications, institutions must align the visions of their numerous faculties and departments, review existing entrepreneurship education output, and increase levels of systematic entrepreneurial engagement to increase the validity and acceptability of both entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial activity.

7.4.2 Collaboration The growing entrepreneurship education community has widely contributed to related research, at both academic and governmental levels. It is from this community that the entrepreneurship education pedagogical movement has burgeoned over the past generation of educators, scholars, and business leaders. Increased levels of communication and long-term collaboration between internal stakeholders must be witnessed. As each university adopts and applies the enterprise agenda, it is hoped that every institution can reach a pragmatic consensus on the benefits of both delivery and support for all students at university. Collaboration of emerging ideas and championed entrepreneurial activity, at a practical level within the educational environment, can then be achieved.

7.4.3 HEI-Rooted Innovation The key to such sustainable and purposeful advancements in entrepreneurship education programmes and entrepreneurial activity lies firstly, however, in the programmes and how entrepreneurship education is taught. A rooted, institution-wide transformation of teaching methods, assessment, and surrounding, supportive initiatives would seek to

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

199

i­lluminate a student’s entrepreneurial learning. This can be across many disciplines within many academic schools of a university. As stated within this book, duplicated entrepreneurship education programmes across countries are neither desired nor regarded as suitable by current entrepreneurship education educators and researchers. However, embedding entrepreneurship education within the respective specialisms of universities, and in response to their immediate communities, shall result in bespoke, enterprising outcomes towards a multidisciplinary and skilled graduate population locally and internationally.

7.5 Directing Policy: Affirming Institutional and Individual Ambitions Examples from national and international parliaments have evidenced the particular power and influence that government and supportive organisations have, with regard to universities aspiring to advance entrepreneurship education delivery and support. The following are just a few of the typical ways in which institutions and other related bodies can be strengthened within this educational and industrial nexus:

7.5.1 Practitioner Recruitment Now that significant government interest has been expressed in recent reporting, universities must benefit from this exposure and recruit experienced, entrepreneurial staff. These individuals should be able to consult with the local, regional, and national business and public service communities. This consistent consultation should ideally encourage retrospective reviews of both a university’s teaching and enterprising operations within and outwith the institution.

200 

R. J. Crammond

7.5.2 Outreach Consultancy An arguable requirement of entrepreneurship education programmes, as supported within this book, is the recruitment of entrepreneurially experienced individuals who are involved at delivery and/or support levels within the entrepreneurial university. This action shall introduce and compliment the new wave of entrepreneurial learning witnessed and yearned for within higher education institutions, strengthening educational and business links with immediate communities, and societies connected to the institution.

7.5.3 Personnel Review Increasing related activities, post certification, requires continued engagement between universities and, as highlighted before, the local and regional business communities. A key component of a true and productive higher education agenda for enterprise must seek to, as highlighted, understand the expectations and requirements of entrepreneurship education–related stakeholders. If reachable, this shall aid in the attaining of key entrepreneurial outcomes, intentions, and anticipated legacies.

7.6 Concluding Comments This book’s seventh and final chapter began with a motto of mine. In summing up, this is what modern universities should aspire to be: readily supportive, but consistently imaginative. As discussed at the start of this book, institutions should consider their capacity for enterprise, their capability and quality of teaching and researching the fields of enterprise and entrepreneurship studies, the level of mobility in engaging with the marketplace and society, and finally their durability and resilience in the face of local and more distant challenges. Recent decades of increased internationalisation and global opportunities for universities have triggered a reimagination and rebranding of their institutions.

7 Conclusion: Moving Entrepreneurship Education Forward… 

201

As this book has displayed, there is now an abundance of research, debate, and novel ideas as to how we can advance entrepreneurship education. Predominantly over the past few decades, teaching methods, practical approaches, and modes of assessment have all been considered. Since then, these aspects of teaching and support have evolved to acknowledge and include more individuals, and groups, towards the establishment of shared goals and strategic objectives. These many factors, asserted throughout this chapter, and the book in general, can confidently enrich entrepreneurship education and propel the message forward. Aspects of continued and local empirical research, long-term collaboration, autonomy, and trust are just a few ways in which entrepreneurship education can progress. Through advancing teaching and support for entrepreneurship, the enterprise agenda and creative and innovative ambitions of universities can successfully reach and inspire many more students to come.

References Aldrich, H. E. (2012) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship’. Research Policy. Vol.41, pp. 1240–1248. Beresford, R. and Beresford, K. (2010) ‘The role of networks in supporting grassroots good practice in enterprise education’. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. Vol.15(3), pp. 275–288. Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012. European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Fetters, M., Greene, P. G. and Rice, M. P. (Eds.). (2010) The Development of University-Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

202 

R. J. Crammond

Gimmon, E. (2014) ‘Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship’. Education and Training. Vol.56(8/9), pp. 814–825. Jones, C. (2011) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Jones, C. (2013) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Postgraduates. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mason, C. (2014) Creating Entrepreneurial Campuses: A report for Scotland. Discussion Paper. Quality Assurance Agency Scotland, Edinburgh. Neck, H.  M. and Greene, P.  G. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.49(1), pp. 55–70. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2010a) ‘Constructing an entrepreneurial architecture: An emergent framework for studying the contemporary university beyond the entrepreneurial turn’. Innovative Higher Education. Vol.35(3), pp. 161–176. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2010b) ‘Entrepreneurial by design: Theorizing the entrepreneurial transformation of contemporary universities’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.24(3), pp. 157–164. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurial architecture: A blueprint for entrepreneurial universities’. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/ Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration. Vol.28(3), pp. 341–353.

Appendix

Guidance Notes for Educators, Course Leaders, and Session or Practical Workshop Facilitators: • The practical appendices included within this book have been created to be used as supportive worksheets for –– Classroom tutorials, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels –– Formative or summative-based assessment materials –– Thematic workshops –– Roundtable discussion and scenario activities –– Conference session activities • The worksheets are also designed to aid the academic and professional development of –– Enterprising educators, at all levels of teaching delivery –– Students, and their learning –– Research students

© The Author(s) 2020 R. J. Crammond, Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5

203

204 Appendix

–– Graduates –– University support staff –– Career and employability professionals –– Relevant industry partners –– Nascent entrepreneurs –– Other interested parties, within and outwith higher education • A general information box is provided to allow for easier dissemination in class, as well as maintaining adequate session-planning materials and note/record keeping. • The aim, description, learning outcome(s), and question/reflective elements within all of the worksheets are partially completed; purposively, to aid the session facilitator in both describing the scope and outlining the intended format of the given activity. • Each appendix worksheet also aligns with the concepts discussed within each chapter. These are noted within each of the worksheets’ information boxes. • The seven worksheets refer to certain skills, to highlight relevant themes and attributes that could also be topics of general end-of-activity discussion in an open-floor scenario. Making reference to skills such as these are actively encouraged in the classroom and towards both formative and summative assessment approaches. • Sections labelled as creative ‘space’, for notetaking and illustration, are also included within each worksheet. These spaces are to encourage question and response preparation from students, towards more practical and enterprising engagement during the session. The following table provides a constructive summary, addressing all seven practical worksheets. This includes stated and non-restrictive recommendations as to when these may be utilised within the classroom and surrounding university departments. These recommendations are categorised between educator and student, documenting the potential benefits to session, course, or university enhancement, or classroom activity

E

D

C

B

A

Appendix Item

Building Stakeholder Relationships and Legacies:

Who, what, where, when, and why? (1 of 2)

Stakeholder Identification for Entrepreneurship Education:

Delivery and Assessment

Applying Entrepreneurship Education:

Introductory Worksheet

Approaching Entrepreneurship Education:

Models, Templates, and Worksheets

Overview of Concepts and Practices:

Worksheet Title

Entrepreneurial Networks Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Championing Enterprise Educational Nexus

Stakeholder Recognition Stakeholder Appreciation Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement Industry Awareness

Teaching Enterprise Module Expectation Appropriate Styles and Delivery Module Assessment

Entrepreneurship Understandings Definitions & Descriptions Word Associations & Discussion

Knowledge & Understanding Theoretic Appreciation Session Planning

Relevant Themes and Topics (Topical Discussion and Assessment Mapping)

 Educators: Fact-finding activities. Environment scanning.  Students: Mid-point of UG and PG module delivery.  Students: (Market) research and business case sessions.  Faculty / University: Design / re-design phase of module or programme creation.

 Educators: Roundtable discussion.  Students: First phase (two, three weeks) of UG or crash course PG offering.  Educators: Design phase of module or programme creation.  Students: Mid-point, and upon assessment.

 Educators: Session planning.  Students: Opening, orientation session of UG or PG module.

Appropriate Level of Study / Session / Workshop

 Appendix 

205

G

F

Road-mapping Enterprising Behaviour

Envisaging Future Roles for Entrepreneurship Education:

Session-planning Checklist

Encouraging Enterprising Learning Spaces:

Champions of Entrepreneurship Education (2 of 2)

Environmental Volatility Institutional Change Societal Benefit

Entrepreneurial Environments Advancing Entrepreneurship Education Organisational Culture Session Planning

 University-wide: periodic, forum discussion.  Students: Topical discussion – PG and Research workshops.

 University-wide: periodic, forum discussion.  Students: Student Group Activity: Formative or Summative Assessment for UG.

 Students: (Market) research and business case and defence sessions.

206 Appendix

 Appendix  A)

207

Overview of Concepts and Practices: Models, Templates, and Worksheets Overview of Concepts and Practices: Models, Templates, and Worksheets

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) _________________________________________ Week ________

Room ________

Tutor ________________________________

Session Topic _________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description This worksheet summarises the conceptual and practical models, showcased within each chapter of this book.

To recap, the question summary and chapter-by-chapter concepts are as follows:

Figure 1.1 Chapter and Question Summary Figure 2.1 Evolved Entrepreneurial Understandings: Individuals and Institutions Figure 3.1 Conceptualising Entrepreneurialism: The Educational Context Figure 4.1 The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Concept: An Illustration Figure 5.1 The Educational Stakeholder Inclusivity Model: Processes for Enterprise Figure 6.1 Entrepreneurship Education Futures: Cultural Considerations A set of questions relevant to enterprise and entrepreneurship education are listed as per concept. As institutions increasingly embrace creative and innovative education in action, these questions can instigate initial discussion and bespoke learning materials.

208 Appendix Learning Outcome(s)

Define enterprise and entrepreneurship education. Discuss enterprise and entrepreneurship, appreciating educational contexts and contemporary understandings. Critically reflect on universities, enterprising culture, and inclusive forms of education. Relevant Themes and Topics Knowledge & Understanding Theoretical Appreciation Session Planning To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book (filled box denotes relevancy): Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1 Related Skills Creativity Resources Management & Planning Working with Other People

Session Questions Individually, or in groups, review the concepts from this book and answer the following five questions: Q1)

In being entrepreneurial, how can you realise, support, and advance entrepreneurialism?

Q2)

What does ‘creative destruction’ mean to you?

 Appendix 

209

Q3)

What are the personal and interpersonal benefits of entrepreneurship education?

Q4)

In your opinion, which are the three most important stakeholder groups, with respect to enterprising activity?

Q5)

Describe examples of each of the aspects of business-related capital?

Label your responses within each of the concepts, where relevant, in discussing the contextual impact within your institution, or nearby university environment.

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specifications

Creative Space and Notes (for students and participants)

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

210 Appendix ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

 Appendix 

211

......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

B)

Approaching Entrepreneurship Education: Introductory Worksheet Approaching Entrepreneurship Education: Introductory Worksheet

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) _________________________________________ Week ________

Room ________

Tutor ________________________________

Session Topic _________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description This second appendix aims to assist educators in facilitating entrepreneurship within the classroom. A focused discussion of the practical origins and progression in understanding enterprise and entrepreneurship allows for interesting conversations to be realised.

Learning Outcome(s) Appreciate historical origins of entrepreneurship practice. Discuss the evolution of enterprise theory. Reflect upon the relevancy of entrepreneurship in industry and society today.

212 Appendix Relevant Themes and Topics

Entrepreneurship Understandings Definitions & Descriptions Word Associations & Discussion To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book (filled box denotes relevancy): Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1 Related Skills Creativity & Entrepreneurial Vision Self-awareness & Critical Reflection Learning from Particular Experiences

Session Questions Individually, or in groups, ref lect on and answer the following six questions: Q1)

What does enterprise mean to you?

Q2)

What does entrepreneurship mean to you?

Q3)

What comes to mind when you think of an entrepreneur? (try to come up with 10 terms)

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ Q4)

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________

What are the attributes of an entrepreneur? (try to come up with 10)

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________ _________________________

 Appendix 

_________________________ _________________________

213

_________________________ _________________________

Q5)

What are your past experiences of, or exposure to, entrepreneurship?

Q6)

What are the benefits of entrepreneurship? a) Industrially b) Societally c) Internationally

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specif ications

Creative Space and Notes ( for students and participants)

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

214 Appendix ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

 Appendix 

215

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

C)

Applying Entrepreneurship Education: Delivery and Assessment Applying Entrepreneurship Education: Delivery and Assessment

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) _________________________________________ Week ________

Room ________

Tutor ________________________________

Session Topic _________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description For the development of educators, this appendix recognises the advancements of entrepreneurship education and considers the possible ways to deliver and assess relevant content. A decisional diagram outlines potential solutions for educators to enrich the entrepreneurial pedagogy and identify potential secondary and tertiary stakeholders.

Learning Outcome(s) Consider the myriad of the relevant learning and teaching approaches. Outline session and course planning.

Include multiple modes of learning and identify relevant stakeholders to improve the learner experience.

216 Appendix Relevant Themes and Topics Teaching Enterprise Module Expectation Appropriate Styles and Delivery Module Assessment

To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book ( filled box denotes relevancy): Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1

Related Skills Creativity & Innovation Working with Others Initiative & Responsibility Management Planning

Session Instructions Answer the following decisional questions and follow the diagram towards a suggested, pedagogical solution. Bear in mind, these suggestions should consider the four main aspects detailed throughout this book: a university’s capacity, capability, mobility, and durability.

217

 Appendix  Enterprising Education: Initial Decisional Diagram

Enterprise:

Individual: Written or Verbal Assessment / Activity?

Skills or Venture Based?

Skills

Individual or Group Based Work?

Entrepreneurship: Venture

Individual or Group Based Work?

Group:

Individual:

Group:

Written or Verbal Assessment / Activity?

Written or Verbal Assessment / Activity?

Written or Verbal Assessment / Activity?

Written

Verbal

Written

Verbal

Competency & Skills Review

Reflective / Personal & Interpersonal

Scenario Analysis / Skills & Delegation

Case Study Presentation

Written

Verbal

Written

Verbal

Personal Planning (Business and Financial)

Business Forecasting

Company / Start-Up Exercises and Planning

Business Defence / Corporate Pitching

Now consider and reflect upon the questions below.

Now… Consider and Ref lect Q1)

Do these new methods ref lect the purpose and expectations of the session(s) or course(s)?

Q2)

Are the assessments rigorous, and suitably aligned with the rest of the degree programme?

Q3)

What is the level of (potential) engagement with industry and other, external groups?

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specifications

218 Appendix

Creative Space and Notes ( for students and participants)

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

 Appendix 

219

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

220 Appendix D)

Stakeholder Identification for Entrepreneurship Education: Who, what, where, when, and why? (1 of 2) Stakeholder Identification for Entrepreneurship Education: Who, what, where, when, and why? (1 of 2)

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) _________________________________________ Week________

Room________

Tutor________________________________

Session Topic_________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description In terms of university stakeholders: what are their enterprising goals? Who is key in achieving these goals? Within this worksheet, many questions are posed, in visualising the involvement of these key individuals, as the experiences of enterprising people and creative pedagogies align. Learning Outcome(s) Discuss the concept and importance of university and organisational stakeholders, for entrepreneurship. Identify and justify an enterprising idea for an individual, group, or university. Construct an appropriate strategic plan, which encourages entrepreneurial action towards realising this idea. Relevant Themes and Topics Stakeholder Recognition Stakeholder Appreciation Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement Industry Awareness

 Appendix 

221

To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book (filled box denotes relevancy): Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1

Related Skills Noticing Opportunities Working with and delegating with others Being aware of risk and uncertainty

Session Instructions Q1) Who are the important and inf luential people who may be involved (and impacted ) with my enterprising idea? Who is the end user, for example?

Q2)

Q3)

What are some of the examples of this idea in practice, currently witnessed in the market? Is there any?

Where can my idea be of benefit?

Q4)

Why is this important to others, and to me?

Q5)

How will this inf luence others?

222 Appendix

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specif ications

Creative Space and Notes (for students and participants)

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

 Appendix 

223

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

224 Appendix E)

Building Stakeholder Relationships and Legacies: Champions of Entrepreneurship Education (2 of 2) Building Stakeholder Relationships and Legacies: Champions of Entrepreneurship Education (2 of 2)

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) Week ________

Room ________

________________________________________ Tutor ________________________________

Session Topic _________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description This worksheet emphasises the numerous responsibilities and objectives of educators and supportive staff. This promotes the concept of entrepreneurship education champions, and underpins previously disintegrated positions within education, into more validated roles. Learning Outcome(s) Consider the many individuals, within the university environment, who support enterprise and entrepreneurship education. Detail relevant attributes and justify these individuals as enterprising champions. Construct an action plan, to promote further engagement between individuals, supportive academic/career development departments, and academic faculties. Relevant Themes and Topics Entrepreneurial Networks Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Championing Enterprise Educational Nexus

 Appendix 

225

To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book (filled box denotes relevancy): Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1

Related Skills Noticing Opportunities Entrepreneurial Vision Motivating Other People Management & Project Planning Critical Reflection

Instruction Q1)

Who are the main, enterprising individuals within the university?

Q2)

What are their attributes?

Q3)

What are the potential, collaborative activities that can take place?

Enterprising Action Plan – (tick which month(s) the activities below would practically relate to) -

Month

Month

Month

Month

Month

Month

226 Appendix

C)

B)

A)

Enterprising Engagement to Initiate/Improve

Objective(s)

Key Activities & Operations

Individuals who can Help/Mentor/ Manage

Measurable Indicators, Evidence of Success

Timeline of Action(s)

 Appendix 

227

228 Appendix

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specifications

Creative Space and Notes (for students and participants)

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

 Appendix 

229

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

230 Appendix F)

Encouraging Enterprising Learning Spaces: Session-planning Checklist Encouraging Enterprising Learning Spaces: Session-planning Checklist

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) _________________________________________ Week ________

Room ________

Tutor ________________________________

Session Topic _________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description This penultimate worksheet reviews the resources and capabilities of the enterprising classroom. By acknowledging different considerations, it aims to question the effectiveness and eff iciency of learning spaces towards building entrepreneurial legacies.

Learning Outcome(s) Discuss the key components of an enterprising classroom. Reflect on the recent innovations and developments that have impacted the entrepreneurial university. Consider different scenarios and approaches to teaching.

Relevant Themes and Topics Entrepreneurial Environments Advancing Entrepreneurship Education Organisational Culture Session Planning

 Appendix 

231

To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book (filled box denotes relevancy):

Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1 Related Skills Creativity & Innovation Entrepreneurial Vision Initiative & Responsibility Working with Other People

Session Instructions Q1)

What, in your opinion, does an enterprising classroom need?

Q2)

What do you consider to be good examples of educational innovation that are of relevance to advancing entrepreneurship education?

Q3)

Decide and justify upon which session plan approach can adequately match the aim and objectives of your session.

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specifications

232 Appendix

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

 Appendix 

233

Creative Space and Notes (for students and participants)

G)

Envisaging Future Roles for Entrepreneurship Education: Road-mapping Enterprising Behaviour Envisaging Future Roles for Entrepreneurship Education: Road-mapping Enterprising Behaviour

From the book Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities: Concepts and Practices for Teaching and Support by Robert James Crammond Module / Course / Programme (Code) _________________________________________ Week ________

Room ________

Tutor ________________________________

Session Topic _________________________________ Approx. Duration ___hrs ___mins

Session Aim & Description This seventh and final appendix worksheet summarises the concluding remarks from this book, asserting key positions of responsibility for the advancement of entrepreneurship education. This can be done by outlining helpful short-, medium-, and longer-term goals.

Learning Outcome(s) Consider future roles for the many stakeholders related to entrepreneurship education. Debate the importance of these roles and responsibilities. Introduce and justify many macroeconomic (political and societal) factors which impact entrepreneurship education. List short-, medium-, and long-term goals for the advancement of entrepreneurship education, from the perspective of educators, students, or supportive individuals. Relevant Themes and Topics Environmental Volatility Institutional Change Societal Benefit

234 Appendix To assist the relevant session or workshop delivered, this appendix aligns with the following concept(s) from this book (filled box denotes relevancy): Figure 1.1 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1

Related Skills Noticing Viable Opportunities Witnessing New Ideas Critical and Self-Reflection Responsibility Project Management Learning from Experiences

Goal-Setting Exercise Short Term (up to 1 year) Medium Term (between 1 and 3 years) Long Term (typically 3 plus years) -

 Appendix 

235

Further Reading Entrepreneurship Education Reporting and Guidance for Teaching Practice European Commission Reporting and National Special Interest Groups Practical Research Mapping against Programme and/or Module Specif ications

Creative Space and Notes (for students and participants)

......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

236 Appendix ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................