Description
Within this brief description concerning entrepreneurs see opportunities. are we encouraging our students to see opportunities.
Entrepreneurs see opportunities.
Are we encouraging our students to see opportunities?
Geraldine McGing, Pauline Connolly, Philip McGovern
Ireland has gone through a period of phenomenal change over the last two decades. The
country has developed from a period of high unemployment in the 1970s / mid 80s to
economic success. In the last year the country has found itself in the midst of a recession
that transcends many industries. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
(GEM), 2007, the percentage of people who were either thinking of going into business
or had just started a new venture slid substantially in Ireland, Europe and the US last
year. Rebecca Harding, executive director of GEM, said the fall in house prices had a
particular impact in the US because people felt they had less of a financial cushion to
support a business risk. "It has been difficult for people to think that they have the
freedom to borrow a bit of money off their house to start a business”, she said. The
report, which analyses levels of entrepreneurship in 42 countries, found substantial
declines in the proportion of people involved in early-stage start-up activity in several of
the world's richest nations.
Enterprise education is a process involving a series of stages and a number of
stakeholders who need to be an active part of the process. The central stakeholders are
students, teachers (trainers), the educational institution, the awarding bodies, and
employers within the business community.
Enterprise education should encourage the growth of new businesses. De Faoite et al.
(2003) found that entrepreneurship education provided for the integration of a variety of
business subjects, the promotion of improved decision-making skills and an increase in
technology transfer between education establishments and the market place, thus creating
improved synergy and added value between both entities and the potential to add value to
other non-business and technical programmes. The need to broaden enterprise education
outwards has also been endorsed by the European Commission (2003) and Galloway et
al. (2005). Galloway et al. (2005) suggested that a “cross disciplinary approach” to
enterprise education can influence a range of industry sectors, including the arts, science
and technology disciplines. Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) in their assessment and
evaluation of a number of entrepreneurship programmes found that the better or more
successful programmes were those that had the ability to integrate learning across the
general educational experience of the student and those introducing enterprise education
into other courses. Enterprise education should contribute to the development of a range
of skills, including the ability to innovate and to provide leadership, which pays
dividends for the individual and the economy in any employment context.
This research paper was exploratory in nature. Observation and systematic interviewing,
case study methodology was the most suitable for this research in order to understand the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and enterprise development. The sample
included lecturers, heads of faculty, and college presidents across the entire island of
Ireland to examine the method in which educators are teaching their students to think
entrepreneurially.
INTRODUCTION
The negative ramifications for many businesses over the past decade are serious because
investors are looking for opportunities in ‘new economy’ firms. These firms will be
deemed to create value by delivering products and services that customers want to buy, at
prices that yield a healthy profit. The enthusiasm for new economy firms is projected to
come from entrepreneurial start-ups as a result of innovation and technological discovery,
unsaddled with the historical burdens of more mature firms. Paradoxically, if these start-
ups are to realise their potential, they will have to face the prospect of taking on the
features of established enterprises. This raises important questions for enterprise students:
Is it innovation that brings competitive advantage to old economy firms?
Can new economy start-ups avoid the growing pains that entrepreneurial ventures
encountered in the recent past?
The argument over what constitutes an “entrepreneur” has been ongoing in research
literature. Initially, it was thought that to be an entrepreneur required an inherent set of
personality traits, but this has shifted recently towards the idea that it is possible to learn
the behaviours and actions associated with entrepreneurship. Hay (2004) indicated that
the motivation to become an entrepreneur cannot be taught perhaps, but the ability to
identify and assess an opportunity can. So too can the skills to put together a convincing
business plan, the merits of different kinds of finance and the types of challenges to
expect in start-up situations. Gibb (2002; 2005) views entrepreneurship as skills and
attributes that can be applied in an individual or organisational context to deal with
innovation, change and high levels of uncertainty and complexity. The implication is that
it may be feasible to teach people these behavioural patterns and therefore, facilitate
entrepreneurship. The case for discussing entrepreneurship, even in the current economic
climate is strongly supported by The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report
(Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2007; 2008).
A comparison of entrepreneurship activity by education level is produced in Table 1
below. The effect of education levels in Ireland on a willingness to become entrepreneurs
is difficult to gauge. Early stage entrepreneurship tends to increase as general education
levels increase across the EU and OECD regions. There is, however, a coincidence of
eight per cent of the lowest and the highest and a comparatively weak level at the end of
secondary stage. According to the GEM report, (2008) there is a marked difference with
the USA where 13.3 per cent of early stage education level people become entrepreneurs.
This is a multiple of 1.5, a marked difference – a possible reason for this is that social
welfare provisions in the EU act as a disincentive compared to the relatively low level of
social welfare provision in the USA.
Table 1: Entrepreneurship activity rates by education attainment level in Ireland
Higher educational attainment level Early stages entrepreneurial activity
Percentage of adults in each
educational category
Primary and/or some secondary
8.5
Secondary
(Leaving Cert or equivalent)
3.9
Third level (degree, diploma or
certificate)
8..1
Postgraduate 8.3
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2008
GEM policy reflects a broadly held perception that academic institutions have the
potential to do more in terms of entrepreneurship. Extracts from policy reviews serve as
the final source of evidence for considering academic entrepreneurship. For example, the
Forfas Enterprise Strategy Group (2004) identified two issues requiring attention: the
need for more effective interaction between higher education and business; the need for
academic institutions to address internal structural/management systems to better
facilitate increased interaction:
Higher education should be underpinned by a coherent policy approach that
includes universities, institutes of technology, colleges of education and private
higher education colleges. …
(Forfas Enterprise Strategy Group Report, 2004, p. 74)
The structures and management of higher education are no longer adequate to
meet the complex demands of society in general …”
(Forfas Enterprise Strategy Group Report, 2004, p. 75)
The policy perspective in Northern Ireland implicitly suggests the need for government-
industry-higher education to be re-assessed and developed in order to be more responsive
to the needs of modern economies:
Government will have to learn to do more to support business - university
collaboration.
(Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, 2003, p. 2)
Literature Review
The launch of a new organisation or business venture is generally agreed to be at the core
of entrepreneurship (Gartner 1985, Low & Abramson 1997, Katz & Garner 1988, Aldrich
1999, Delmar & Shane 2004)). Kuratko (2005) highlights two contributions that
entrepreneurial activity makes to a market economy- firstly they are an integral part of
the renewal process that pervades and defines market economies. Entrepreneurial firms
play a crucial role in the innovations that lead to technological change and productivity
growth. In short, they are about change and competition because they change market
structure. The market economies are dynamic organic entities always in the process of
“becoming,” rather than an established one that has already arrived. They are about
prospects for the future, not about the inheritance of the past (Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2004).
Second, entrepreneurial firms are the essential mechanism by which many enter the
economic mainstream. Entrepreneurial firms enable millions of people, including women,
minorities, and immigrants, to access the pursuit of economic success. …In this
evolutionary process, entrepreneurship plays the crucial and indispensable role of
providing the “social glue” that binds together both high-tech and mainstream industries
(Kuratko 2005). Kuratko suggests that the creation of business alone does not give the
full picture of entrepreneurship of what entrepreneurship is about. He uses the term
‘entrepreneurial perspective’ to describe the characteristics of taking risks beyond
security, seeking opportunities and the tenacity to push through ideas. This perspective
can be exhibited, he argues in any type of organisation- whether commercial, or not for
profit. In support of this view Galloway et al. (2005) suggest that a “cross disciplinary
approach” to enterprise education can influence a range of industry sectors, including the
arts, science and technology disciplines. New organisations or new capabilities, however,
do not mystically appear within an organisation. Winter (2000) argues that they are the
outcome of a deliberate learning process.
Current research evidence is shifting our understanding of entrepreneurship away from
the idea that entrepreneurs are born towards the idea that there are certain skills and
behaviours that can be learnt and that, therefore, can be taught. Hay (2004) suggests that
one of the critical characteristics of entrepreneurship is the ability to identify and assess a
business opportunity and that this can be taught, as can the skill to write an effective
business plan. Gibb (2002, 2005) supports this view and identifies some of the skills of
entrepreneurship as the ability to deal with innovation, change and high levels of
uncertainty and complexity. As individuals can be taught these skills, by implication it
should be possible to encourage and enhance entrepreneurship.
From a handful in the 1970s, there has been an explosion in number of colleges and
universities that offer courses related to entrepreneurship (Katz 2003). Katz (2008) seeks
to paint a picture of a field which is mature but not stagnant, marginally legitimate but
with a long way to go to full legitimacy, and is increasingly central to the new burst of
entrepreneurship education and practice on campuses. His article seeks to demonstrate
that the field of entrepreneurship/small business can be characterized as fully mature, a
view contrasting one proposed by Kuratko.
Evidence of the achievement of full maturity and marginal legitimacy is given based
on benchmarks in the development of the field. Using entrepreneurship as an example,
Katz (2008) develops a theoretical life cycle model for the growth of disciplines. The
major consequence of entrepreneurship’s full maturity is identified as the growing
centrality of the business-school based discipline of entrepreneurship in relation to the
emerging entrepreneurship efforts across campuses. Binks et al’s. (2006) paper examines
entrepreneurship education and the links that need to be created between teaching and
research. Binks argues that there is increasing focus on the general utility of
entrepreneurial skills and aptitudes (that is creativity, independent thinking, opportunity
recognition and exploitation), and contends that entrepreneurship education offers an
innovative new paradigm for business school education that answers some of the
criticisms regarding lack of real world relevance that are currently levelled against the
MBA. According to Binks, by its very nature entrepreneurial activity occurs in response
to changing and uncertain conditions. The pervasive dynamism of the entrepreneurial
environment raises considerably the need for contemporary ‘live’ approaches to learning
rather than an over reliance upon historical observation. While many past experiences of
the entrepreneurial process and the various contextual characteristics that may emerge
can be learned with reference to and through discussion of historical and existing
knowledge and understanding, there is also a strong need to give learners access to the
tacit as well as explicit elements of entrepreneurial behaviour.. This suggests that one
important design principle for entrepreneurship education should be to incorporate an
application that the learners choose based upon their own existing activities in order to
generate their own ‘live’ case study.
Similarly when considering how best to enable the learning of context based operations
such as financial management, entrepreneurial marketing, human resource management,
as well as providing access to generic principles of knowledge and understanding, it is
important for the learners to engage with ‘live’ case studies in real time. Anecdotal
evidence from teaching such courses over many years suggests that students engage far
more enthusiastically with ‘real life’ problems and solution suggestions than with
historical case studies. The fact that the problem is as yet unresolved and the solutions
require careful but real, not simulated, analysis introduces a level of uncertainty that is
intriguing to learners arousing both their curiosity and their commitment. In short the
dynamic nature of entrepreneurial activity adds an important dimension to the learning
experience in terms of the need for contemporary engagement with live issues. The
emergence of entrepreneurship education may indeed provide the catalyst to fundamental
changes to the role of business school teaching and research.
De Faoite et al. (2003) found that entrepreneurship education provided for the integration
of a variety of business subjects, the promotion of improved decision-making skills and
an increase in technology transfer between education establishments and the market
place, thus creating improved synergy and added value between both entities and the
potential to add value to other non-business and technical programmes.
Kuratko (2005) is an advocate of the notion that entrepreneurship can be taught, and in
support of this contention he quotes Peter Drucker (1985) “The entrepreneurial
mystique? It’s not magic, it’s not mysterious, and it has nothing to do with the genes. It’s
a discipline. And, like any discipline, it can be learned”. Kurakto (2005) goes on to cite
some of the future challenges he sees that lie ahead for entrepreneurship education- firstly
the Maturity/Complacency trap- he is concerned that the successes achieved in including
entrepreneurship on the curriculum of business schools will lead to a complacency.
Secondly, the Faulty Pipeline shortage- this refers to the lack of faculty at every rank with
expertise in entrepreneurship. Thirdly, the Technology Challenge refers to the concern
about the lack of the use of new technologies in the delivery of these programmes.
Fourthly, the ‘Dot-Com’ legacy may have damaged the notion of true entrepreneurship as
individuals pursued the quick pursuit of wealth. Fifthly, the Academia vs Business
incongruence refers to the gap between actual entrepreneurs and academics. Sixthly, the
Dilution Effect refers to the dangers of over-using the term entrepreneurial. Seventhly the
Security-Risk dilemma concerns the risk-averse attitude of many academics as they strive
for tenure, which contrasts with the nature of entrepreneurship that they are teaching.
Eighthly, the Administrative Leadership Revolving Door Problem refers to the sporadic
administrative support that the teaching of entrepreneurship enjoys and finally the Power
of One Challenge refers to the fact that many programmes in entrepreneurship relies on
the enthusiasm and passion of one individual rather than it being incorporated into
mainstream curriculum.
A study by Shinnar et al. (2009) investigated the attitudes of students and faculty towards
entrepreneurship, produced some very interesting findings. The first key finding was that
faculty and students often see things quite differently. Perhaps the most glaring difference
was that faculty perceived students to be significantly less entrepreneurial than the
students perceived themselves to be. More than half the students surveyed rated
themselves on the high end of the entrepreneurial disposition scale, whereas more than 75
per cent of faculty rated their students on the low end of the scale. The substantial
difference between students’ aspirations and faculty’ perceptions raise questions about
existing curriculum structures and assumptions. The significant differences in the ranking
of motivators, according to the authors, could stem from student optimism and lack of
work experience. Another explanation they posited was that faculty’ respondents
projected onto students their own values and motives. A further key finding of the study
was that In fact, more than half of the student population who were not studying business
also expressed an interest in taking an entrepreneurship course. Students of art, drama,
music, architecture and law saw possibilities for themselves running or setting up their
own business in the future. Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) in their assessment and
evaluation of a number of entrepreneurship programmes found that the better or more
successful programmes were those that had the ability to integrate learning across the
general educational experience of the student.
The teaching of entrepreneurship is intended to encourage and stimulate the creation of
new ventures (Vesper and Gartner 1997, Leitch & Harrison 1999, Peterman & Kennedy,
2003). Of particular significance to the research question addressed in this paper is the
study by Edelman et al. (2008). They examined the relevance of entrepreneurship
education by comparing the content of curriculum with the activities of nascent
entrepreneurs. They found that there is a disparity between what is being taught in the
classroom and the cited needs of entrepreneurial individuals- in academia they found
there was an emphasis on research and business planning rather than actions, which led
the authors to conclude that textbooks and lectures should be supplemented with as many
hands-on practical experiences as possible.
Even in good times market economies need entrepreneurial activity but there are a lot of
barriers to entrepreneurship. One of the major ones is perception. According to the GEM
survey of entrepreneurship (2007), Ireland has been the number one country in Europe
for new business start-ups, with a very high proportion of the population perceiving new
business opportunities. However, that has hit downward spiral of late . . . There seems to
be a perception that a downturn in economic activity means that there are no
opportunities". Writing in the Sunday Times, Fitzgerald (2008) believes that one of the
biggest obstacles to economic recovery might be a failure of nerve. Perhaps this is where
our academic institutions can make their biggest contributions – by providing their
students with the skills that will encourage them to have the nerve to create and innovate.
Cooney and Murray (2009) suggest that entrepreneurship education is still in its infancy
in Ireland and that most institutions remain a long way from the cutting edge of
entrepreneurship education in global terms. Their report also highlights the lack of supply
of suitable academic staff to contribute to entrepreneurship modules and that there is a
high dependence within institutions to depend on a single member of staff who “is
championing the cause fro entrepreneurship education within that institution, and should
that individual leave there will be a question mark over the very survival of
entrepreneurship education within that institution” (p83).
METHODOLOGY
This research was case based incorporating a two year period, where the was to explore
the impact of entrepreneurship education on enterprise development. The usefulness of
this research approach has been established in the literature (Hamel et al, 1993). The
study was explanatory in nature. There were many ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions to be
answered in the context of this issue. It is believed that through observation and
systematic interviewing, case study methodology was the most valuable for
understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship education and enterprise
development. The case study method was considered appropriate as it sanctioned the
investigation of contemporary phenomenona within a real life context (Aaker and Day,
1990; Bell, 1993; Yin, 2003). This research application is reinforced by Brown and
Duguid (1991), who suggest, impacting learning and innovation requires one to study and
understand the situation in which practice occurs. While case research may be criticised
for its lack of rigour, the author has followed suggestions from previous investigations
(e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009) to ensure the validity of
the research.
A total of 29 individuals were questioned, 17 from the Republic of Ireland and 12 from
the Northern Ireland.
Questions were posed in five general areas:
• What makes an academic institution entrepreneurial?
• What does entrepreneurship mean to you as a practicing academic?
• How do students benefit from entrepreneurship?
• How do academic institutions support entrepreneurship?
• Are there any inhibitors to entrepreneurship within academic institutions? If so,
what are they?
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection for this study utilised in-depth semi-structured interviews in a field setting
to ensure standardisation. A case protocol, advocated by (Yin, 2009) was designed and
used to guide the structured interview and data collection. The protocol included multi-
diagnostic questions. While most of the data collection was qualitative in nature,
quantitative data was also collected to verify the findings. This use of multiple sources of
evidence enhances both the reliability and validity of the research (Voss et al., 2002; Yin,
2009).
To ensure the quality of the research design a number of validity tests were conducted as
indicated necessary by previous studies (Yin, 2009). Table 2 reviews the approach
applied to ensure the quality of this method. The rest of this section reviews the
information collected and analyses the effects of Entrepreneurship Education on
enterprise path development.
Table 2. Research Validity Tests
Test Approach Used
(1) Construct Validity
Develop sufficient set of operational
measures to reduce subjective judgment
(a) Revised multiple sources of
evidence so that the findings were
based on convergence of both
qualitative and quantitative
information
(b) Established a chain of evidence with
sufficient citations to relevant
portions of the case study transcripts
(c) Asked participants to review draft
case interviews
(2) External validity
Ensure generalisation of findings
The researchers strived to generalise a
particular set of results on to a broader
theory
(3) Reliability
Demonstrate that repetition of the data
collection procedures will result in the
same conclusions
(a) Interviewed multiple subjects within
institutions and responses were
cross-referenced
(b) Created case study notes and
narratives for future reviews and
analysis
FINDINGS
Several respondents commented on the need to widen the concept of entrepreneurship
from a focus on small businesses and spinouts firms, to an understanding that explicitly
encompassed innovation as an academic activity.
At the level of the individual academic, respondents identified entrepreneurship as a
powerful way to cultivate linkages with economic partners from outside institutions and
this was considered to be pivotal in enabling value creation. Several respondents
commented on the structures that create inter-disciplinary rivalry and noted the need to
integrate discipline-based knowledge silos.
The increasing emphasis on entrepreneurship education as a cultural and social
phenomenon was seen as reinforcing the relevance of academics in the creation of new
knowledge. Several respondents commented on the ability of entrepreneurship to
encompass theory and practice in a holistic way. As one respondent suggested:
Entrepreneurs don’t work in a vacuum; they have to fit into a much wider support
environment. To be successful they have to be able to get on with and understand
people in banks and various other agencies and therefore it behoves us to equip
students with these skills.
Respondents reported that they perceived student benefits from entrepreneurship in the
context of personal development and the synergies gained from linking entrepreneurship,
innovation and creativity. Venture project activity was seen as being very demanding by
students but also rewarding and of immense value in terms of career planning and
employability. As one respondent put it, ‘the new battle lines are between the insurgents
and the incumbents and the way to win is not through scale but creativity, imagination
and experimentation’.
When asked about what institutions should do to support entrepreneurship, respondents
commented on the need to penetrate the command and control/Taylorist mindset of some
institutions and ‘reframe’ attitudes to research to encompass creativity, innovation and
entrepreneurship. The role of the institution was seen as particularly important in this
regard in terms of support and reward strategies. One respondent suggested
We have accomplished a huge amount since the mid nineties and we have a much
more positive culture and environment for entrepreneurship now. We need
entrepreneurship to be a new leg for our economic development strategy. Foreign
direct investment has been the main driver of the strategy up until now but we
can't rely on that in the long-term. We are facing competition for that investment
now so we need to develop our own entrepreneurial growth drivers.
Traditional faculty structures were perceived as ‘stovepipes’ that create segmented
analyses of developments across institutions and generate ‘turf battles’ and gridlock and
lack uniformity of purpose. The need for organic structures and more responsive
organisational units was seen as imperative to fulfilling the expectations of policy makers
and the wider economic partners. It was felt that there was a need for institutions to
communicate with all academics in promoting entrepreneurship as an educational priority
in terms of mission and culture. Ireland is still dependent on creating enterprise and
seeking opportunities, for example a responded commented
There are a lot of barriers to entrepreneurship. One of the major ones is
perception. According to the GEM survey of entrepreneurship (2007), Ireland has
been the number one country in Europe for new business start-ups, with a very
high proportion of the population perceiving new business opportunities.
However, that has hit downward spiral of late . . . There seems to be a perception
that a downturn in economic activity means that there are no opportunities
In fast-moving, technologically complex and innovative industry domains, third level
institutions’ ability to keep pace with enterprise development initiatives may force a
rethink of their strategies. As one respondent put it, “it is important that brick walls
which inevitably will be encountered along the way are acknowledged and addressed.
When those moments of crisis occur, staff should be encouraged to develop creative and
innovative solutions to surmount these obstacles”. Technology within industry has
continued to develop exponentially and radical changes have resulted which have
significant implications for education..
One of the institutions researched abandoned its traditional functional structure in favour
of a more flexible team-based structure and a more business-process-oriented way of
doing business. In the new structure, teams report directly to the senior management. As
an incubation manager suggested,
People make better entrepreneurs if they have some life experience - preferable to
have worked in industry and have developed invaluable networks and may have
seen ways of doing things better or more cheaply that gives rise to new business
opportunities.
The changing business landscape is one that calls for fresh ways of thinking. One of the
incubation managers interviewed believes this and has taken on challenging third-level
education initiatives to help steer potential entrepreneurs through the conundrum of
starting and growing businesses in contracting markets. Academics must be mentors and
provide a clear direction and future focus for a business within a time span and move
potential entrepreneurs from an operations focus to a customer and market focus. A
survey respondent accounts how groups of enterprise students are put through a Dragons’
Den-style process where they present the case for their business venture which is then
dissected by their peers.
There is much anecdotal evidence that a scarcity of resources encourages learning and
unlimited resources breed waste and inefficiency. Innovation and adaptation are
encouraged in an environment of shortage, competition and the struggle for relevance. As
a consequence of the downturn in craft skills in Ireland, it is expected that more students
will embark on third level programmes.
As noted by a prominent lecturer in Enterprise Development,
A key point is identifying or creating a need that you can satisfy with your
proposition - see things from the customer perspective, Effective entrepreneurship
therefore requires a marketing approach to identifying inventions or
improvements. Effective marketing starts with realising that a product must
satisfy a customer need and therefore students must learn how to identify and
know who the customer is likely to be and what it will take to satisfy him or her.
Fitzgerald (2008) asserts that the biggest obstacle to getting the good times back might be
a failure of nerve, such as to be sufficiently audacious would be a tragedy for this and
future generations.
People are looking for value propositions in the market - this relates to
manufacturing as well as services in sectors such as retail, leisure and so on. This
offers opportunities for people to deliver value. Value doesn't necessarily mean
cheap, it means quality as well. As academic entrepreneurs it is incumbent on us
to be their champion but also their chief critic.
Conclusion
This research has illustrated that in the main on the Ireland of Ireland, many academics
believe that entrepreneurship is being encouraged, though perhaps not as effectively
across disciplines as it might. Respondents identified entrepreneurship as a powerful way
to cultivate linkages with economic partners from outside institutions and that academic
institutions should develop students to be aware of the importance of absorptive capacity
and how they can contribute to it in organisations.
GEM research (Fitzsimmons and O’Gorman, 2007; 2008) indicates that those providing
an entrepreneurship education must ensure that it reinforces a positive culture towards
entrepreneurship that it is appropriate, of a high quality and widely available.
The importance of marketing an idea and matching needs with demands is crucial to the
development of an enterprise culture within any institution. This concurs with the views
expressed by Kuratko (2005) and Galloway et al. (2005).
An interesting finding is the view that certain skills and behaviours of entrepreneurship
can be taught in an academic setting and this view correlates with views expressed by
other writers, Winter (2000), Galloway et al. (2005), Hay(2004), Gibb(2002, 2005).
There is general consensus that the method in which the concept of entrepreneurship is
taught should be encouraging and stimulating so as to encourage the creating on new
ventures. Edelman et al (2008) are in agreement with this and suggest that there is often a
disparity between what is being taught in the classroom and the needs of entrepreneurial
individuals. The importance of life experiences is highlighted in this research and its
effect on the entrepreneurial nature of the student.
One other finding from this research is the relevance of having an enterprising lecturer or
facilitator of entrepreneurship and the effect of the personal characteristics of the
individuals at the helm of the module. This has been highlighted also by work completed
by Shinner et al (2009) and Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) and Cooney and Murray (2008).
Without the supply of enthusiastic and enterprising staff, the very concept of teaching
entrepreneurship will be lost. Throughout this research, it was continually stated by
respondents, that entrepreneurship is not just a module for the business faculty, but
should be taught cross discipline. Ireland is “facing competition … so we need to develop
our own entrepreneurial growth drivers”.
In conclusion, it can be argued that Ireland is an emerging educator of entrepreneurship.
We are not as proficient at this task as other countries and this may be down to a number
of factors including a high dependency on foreign direct investment, a shortage of leading
entrepreneurship teaching staff and the celtic tiger era that we experienced for the lat 20
years. As educators, it is our duty, across all disciplines to encourage our students to
identify and take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities. This will be reflected in the
manner in which we teach as well as a desire to bring the country to a new economic high
where individuals can be encouraged not to be reliant on foreign direct investment, but
can see and evaluate business opportunities and risks and mak entrepreneurship a core
element of the learning experience at all age levels.
References
Aaker, D., & Day, G. (1990); Marketing Research. (4
th
Ed.). London: J. Wiley & Sons.
Aldrich, H. (1999) Organizations Evolving, Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
Baron, R.A., & Markman, G.D. (2000); Beyond social capital: how social skills can
enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 106-116.
Bell, J. (1993); Doing your research project: A guide for first time researchers in
education & social science, (2
nd ed
.). Milton Keynes: Open University.
Binks, M. Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship Education and the
Business School’ Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1–
18, February
Birkinshaw, J., Buckland, W. and Hatcher, A. (2003); Inventuring – Why Big Companies
Must Think Small, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991); Organisational learning and communities-of-practice:
toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Special issue; Organisational
Learning: Papers in honour of (and by) James G. March. Organisational Science, 2
(Special Issue). 40-57.
Cooney T. M., Murray T.M. (2008) Entrepreneurship Education in the Third Level
Sector in Ireland, A report presented to the National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship (U.K.) August 2008
De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K. and Van der Sijde, P. (2003), Education and
training for entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and The Netherlands,
Education & Training, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 430-8
Delmar, F. and Shane, S. (2003) ‘Does Business Planning Facilitate the Development of
New Ventures?’ Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp. 1165–1185.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989); Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 552-550.
Fitzgerald, D. (2008) ‘Securing our Prosperity’, The Sunday Times, 19
th
May, Dublin.
Fitzsimons, P. and O’Gorman, C. (2007), Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2007, Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Dublin City University, Dublin.
Fitzsimons, P. and O’Gorman, C. (2008), Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2008, Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Dublin City University, Dublin.
Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002), “Entrepreneurship Education at University: a Driver
in the Creation of High Growth Firms”, Education þ Training, Vol. 44, no. 8/9, pp. 398-
408.
Forfas (2004), Enterprise Strategy Group- Ahead of the curve, Ireland’s place in the
global economy, Enterprise Ireland, Dublin.
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, No.
3, pp. 233-269.
Gibb, A. (2005) ‘Towards the Entrepreneurial University - Entrepreneurship Education as
a Lever for Change’ National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Policy Paper.
Greiner, L. (1972); Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow, Harvard Business
Review, July-August.
Gartner, W. B. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of
New Venture Creation’ Academy of Management Review, 10(4) pp. 696–706.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993); Case Study Methods, London: Sage
Publications.
Hay, M. (2004); Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Executive Report.
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, no. 1, pp. 11-23.
Kuratko, D. F., (2005) ‘The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development,
Trends and Challenges’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 577-597.
Edelmanm, L., Manolva, T., and Brush, C. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurship Education:
Correspondence between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions
for Success’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 56-70.
Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American
Entrepreneurship Education’ Journal of Business Venturing, 18(20, pp. 283-300.
Katz J. A. (2008) ‘Fully Mature but Not Fully Legitimate: A Different Perspective on the
State of Entrepreneurship Education’ Journal of Small Business Management 2008 46(4)
pp. 550–566
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R. M., (2004) Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice,
Mason, OH, South-Western College Publishers
.
Lambert, R. (2003), Business-University Collaboration, HMSO, Norwich.
Leitch, C. and Harrison, R. (1999) ‘A Process Model for Entrepreneurship Education and
Development’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3)
pp.83–100.
Low, M., and Abramson, M. (1997) ‘Movements, Bandwagons, and Clones: Industry
Evolution and the Entrepreneurial Process’ Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6) pp.
435–458.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994); Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage
Publications.
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003) ‘Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’
Perceptions of Entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2) pp.129–
144.
Shinnar, R, Pruett, M., Toney, B. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes across
Campus’ Journal of Education for Business, Jan/Feb pp. 251-258
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005), Managing Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. 1997. ‘Measuring progress in Entrepreneurship Education’.
Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4) pp.403–421.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M. (2002); Case Research: Case Research in
Operations Management. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 22 (2), 195-215.
Wickham, P. A. (2006); Strategic Entrepreneurship, 4
th
Edition, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Winter, S. (2000); The Satisficing principle in capability learning, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21, 10-11, pp. 981-996.
Yin, R. K. (2003); Applications of Case Study Research. (2
nd
Ed.), London. Sage Pubs.
Yin, R. K. (2009); Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (2
nd
ed.), London: Sage
Pubs.
doc_419431151.pdf
Within this brief description concerning entrepreneurs see opportunities. are we encouraging our students to see opportunities.
Entrepreneurs see opportunities.
Are we encouraging our students to see opportunities?
Geraldine McGing, Pauline Connolly, Philip McGovern
Ireland has gone through a period of phenomenal change over the last two decades. The
country has developed from a period of high unemployment in the 1970s / mid 80s to
economic success. In the last year the country has found itself in the midst of a recession
that transcends many industries. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
(GEM), 2007, the percentage of people who were either thinking of going into business
or had just started a new venture slid substantially in Ireland, Europe and the US last
year. Rebecca Harding, executive director of GEM, said the fall in house prices had a
particular impact in the US because people felt they had less of a financial cushion to
support a business risk. "It has been difficult for people to think that they have the
freedom to borrow a bit of money off their house to start a business”, she said. The
report, which analyses levels of entrepreneurship in 42 countries, found substantial
declines in the proportion of people involved in early-stage start-up activity in several of
the world's richest nations.
Enterprise education is a process involving a series of stages and a number of
stakeholders who need to be an active part of the process. The central stakeholders are
students, teachers (trainers), the educational institution, the awarding bodies, and
employers within the business community.
Enterprise education should encourage the growth of new businesses. De Faoite et al.
(2003) found that entrepreneurship education provided for the integration of a variety of
business subjects, the promotion of improved decision-making skills and an increase in
technology transfer between education establishments and the market place, thus creating
improved synergy and added value between both entities and the potential to add value to
other non-business and technical programmes. The need to broaden enterprise education
outwards has also been endorsed by the European Commission (2003) and Galloway et
al. (2005). Galloway et al. (2005) suggested that a “cross disciplinary approach” to
enterprise education can influence a range of industry sectors, including the arts, science
and technology disciplines. Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) in their assessment and
evaluation of a number of entrepreneurship programmes found that the better or more
successful programmes were those that had the ability to integrate learning across the
general educational experience of the student and those introducing enterprise education
into other courses. Enterprise education should contribute to the development of a range
of skills, including the ability to innovate and to provide leadership, which pays
dividends for the individual and the economy in any employment context.
This research paper was exploratory in nature. Observation and systematic interviewing,
case study methodology was the most suitable for this research in order to understand the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and enterprise development. The sample
included lecturers, heads of faculty, and college presidents across the entire island of
Ireland to examine the method in which educators are teaching their students to think
entrepreneurially.
INTRODUCTION
The negative ramifications for many businesses over the past decade are serious because
investors are looking for opportunities in ‘new economy’ firms. These firms will be
deemed to create value by delivering products and services that customers want to buy, at
prices that yield a healthy profit. The enthusiasm for new economy firms is projected to
come from entrepreneurial start-ups as a result of innovation and technological discovery,
unsaddled with the historical burdens of more mature firms. Paradoxically, if these start-
ups are to realise their potential, they will have to face the prospect of taking on the
features of established enterprises. This raises important questions for enterprise students:
Is it innovation that brings competitive advantage to old economy firms?
Can new economy start-ups avoid the growing pains that entrepreneurial ventures
encountered in the recent past?
The argument over what constitutes an “entrepreneur” has been ongoing in research
literature. Initially, it was thought that to be an entrepreneur required an inherent set of
personality traits, but this has shifted recently towards the idea that it is possible to learn
the behaviours and actions associated with entrepreneurship. Hay (2004) indicated that
the motivation to become an entrepreneur cannot be taught perhaps, but the ability to
identify and assess an opportunity can. So too can the skills to put together a convincing
business plan, the merits of different kinds of finance and the types of challenges to
expect in start-up situations. Gibb (2002; 2005) views entrepreneurship as skills and
attributes that can be applied in an individual or organisational context to deal with
innovation, change and high levels of uncertainty and complexity. The implication is that
it may be feasible to teach people these behavioural patterns and therefore, facilitate
entrepreneurship. The case for discussing entrepreneurship, even in the current economic
climate is strongly supported by The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report
(Fitzsimons and O’Gorman, 2007; 2008).
A comparison of entrepreneurship activity by education level is produced in Table 1
below. The effect of education levels in Ireland on a willingness to become entrepreneurs
is difficult to gauge. Early stage entrepreneurship tends to increase as general education
levels increase across the EU and OECD regions. There is, however, a coincidence of
eight per cent of the lowest and the highest and a comparatively weak level at the end of
secondary stage. According to the GEM report, (2008) there is a marked difference with
the USA where 13.3 per cent of early stage education level people become entrepreneurs.
This is a multiple of 1.5, a marked difference – a possible reason for this is that social
welfare provisions in the EU act as a disincentive compared to the relatively low level of
social welfare provision in the USA.
Table 1: Entrepreneurship activity rates by education attainment level in Ireland
Higher educational attainment level Early stages entrepreneurial activity
Percentage of adults in each
educational category
Primary and/or some secondary
8.5
Secondary
(Leaving Cert or equivalent)
3.9
Third level (degree, diploma or
certificate)
8..1
Postgraduate 8.3
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2008
GEM policy reflects a broadly held perception that academic institutions have the
potential to do more in terms of entrepreneurship. Extracts from policy reviews serve as
the final source of evidence for considering academic entrepreneurship. For example, the
Forfas Enterprise Strategy Group (2004) identified two issues requiring attention: the
need for more effective interaction between higher education and business; the need for
academic institutions to address internal structural/management systems to better
facilitate increased interaction:
Higher education should be underpinned by a coherent policy approach that
includes universities, institutes of technology, colleges of education and private
higher education colleges. …
(Forfas Enterprise Strategy Group Report, 2004, p. 74)
The structures and management of higher education are no longer adequate to
meet the complex demands of society in general …”
(Forfas Enterprise Strategy Group Report, 2004, p. 75)
The policy perspective in Northern Ireland implicitly suggests the need for government-
industry-higher education to be re-assessed and developed in order to be more responsive
to the needs of modern economies:
Government will have to learn to do more to support business - university
collaboration.
(Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, 2003, p. 2)
Literature Review
The launch of a new organisation or business venture is generally agreed to be at the core
of entrepreneurship (Gartner 1985, Low & Abramson 1997, Katz & Garner 1988, Aldrich
1999, Delmar & Shane 2004)). Kuratko (2005) highlights two contributions that
entrepreneurial activity makes to a market economy- firstly they are an integral part of
the renewal process that pervades and defines market economies. Entrepreneurial firms
play a crucial role in the innovations that lead to technological change and productivity
growth. In short, they are about change and competition because they change market
structure. The market economies are dynamic organic entities always in the process of
“becoming,” rather than an established one that has already arrived. They are about
prospects for the future, not about the inheritance of the past (Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2004).
Second, entrepreneurial firms are the essential mechanism by which many enter the
economic mainstream. Entrepreneurial firms enable millions of people, including women,
minorities, and immigrants, to access the pursuit of economic success. …In this
evolutionary process, entrepreneurship plays the crucial and indispensable role of
providing the “social glue” that binds together both high-tech and mainstream industries
(Kuratko 2005). Kuratko suggests that the creation of business alone does not give the
full picture of entrepreneurship of what entrepreneurship is about. He uses the term
‘entrepreneurial perspective’ to describe the characteristics of taking risks beyond
security, seeking opportunities and the tenacity to push through ideas. This perspective
can be exhibited, he argues in any type of organisation- whether commercial, or not for
profit. In support of this view Galloway et al. (2005) suggest that a “cross disciplinary
approach” to enterprise education can influence a range of industry sectors, including the
arts, science and technology disciplines. New organisations or new capabilities, however,
do not mystically appear within an organisation. Winter (2000) argues that they are the
outcome of a deliberate learning process.
Current research evidence is shifting our understanding of entrepreneurship away from
the idea that entrepreneurs are born towards the idea that there are certain skills and
behaviours that can be learnt and that, therefore, can be taught. Hay (2004) suggests that
one of the critical characteristics of entrepreneurship is the ability to identify and assess a
business opportunity and that this can be taught, as can the skill to write an effective
business plan. Gibb (2002, 2005) supports this view and identifies some of the skills of
entrepreneurship as the ability to deal with innovation, change and high levels of
uncertainty and complexity. As individuals can be taught these skills, by implication it
should be possible to encourage and enhance entrepreneurship.
From a handful in the 1970s, there has been an explosion in number of colleges and
universities that offer courses related to entrepreneurship (Katz 2003). Katz (2008) seeks
to paint a picture of a field which is mature but not stagnant, marginally legitimate but
with a long way to go to full legitimacy, and is increasingly central to the new burst of
entrepreneurship education and practice on campuses. His article seeks to demonstrate
that the field of entrepreneurship/small business can be characterized as fully mature, a
view contrasting one proposed by Kuratko.
Evidence of the achievement of full maturity and marginal legitimacy is given based
on benchmarks in the development of the field. Using entrepreneurship as an example,
Katz (2008) develops a theoretical life cycle model for the growth of disciplines. The
major consequence of entrepreneurship’s full maturity is identified as the growing
centrality of the business-school based discipline of entrepreneurship in relation to the
emerging entrepreneurship efforts across campuses. Binks et al’s. (2006) paper examines
entrepreneurship education and the links that need to be created between teaching and
research. Binks argues that there is increasing focus on the general utility of
entrepreneurial skills and aptitudes (that is creativity, independent thinking, opportunity
recognition and exploitation), and contends that entrepreneurship education offers an
innovative new paradigm for business school education that answers some of the
criticisms regarding lack of real world relevance that are currently levelled against the
MBA. According to Binks, by its very nature entrepreneurial activity occurs in response
to changing and uncertain conditions. The pervasive dynamism of the entrepreneurial
environment raises considerably the need for contemporary ‘live’ approaches to learning
rather than an over reliance upon historical observation. While many past experiences of
the entrepreneurial process and the various contextual characteristics that may emerge
can be learned with reference to and through discussion of historical and existing
knowledge and understanding, there is also a strong need to give learners access to the
tacit as well as explicit elements of entrepreneurial behaviour.. This suggests that one
important design principle for entrepreneurship education should be to incorporate an
application that the learners choose based upon their own existing activities in order to
generate their own ‘live’ case study.
Similarly when considering how best to enable the learning of context based operations
such as financial management, entrepreneurial marketing, human resource management,
as well as providing access to generic principles of knowledge and understanding, it is
important for the learners to engage with ‘live’ case studies in real time. Anecdotal
evidence from teaching such courses over many years suggests that students engage far
more enthusiastically with ‘real life’ problems and solution suggestions than with
historical case studies. The fact that the problem is as yet unresolved and the solutions
require careful but real, not simulated, analysis introduces a level of uncertainty that is
intriguing to learners arousing both their curiosity and their commitment. In short the
dynamic nature of entrepreneurial activity adds an important dimension to the learning
experience in terms of the need for contemporary engagement with live issues. The
emergence of entrepreneurship education may indeed provide the catalyst to fundamental
changes to the role of business school teaching and research.
De Faoite et al. (2003) found that entrepreneurship education provided for the integration
of a variety of business subjects, the promotion of improved decision-making skills and
an increase in technology transfer between education establishments and the market
place, thus creating improved synergy and added value between both entities and the
potential to add value to other non-business and technical programmes.
Kuratko (2005) is an advocate of the notion that entrepreneurship can be taught, and in
support of this contention he quotes Peter Drucker (1985) “The entrepreneurial
mystique? It’s not magic, it’s not mysterious, and it has nothing to do with the genes. It’s
a discipline. And, like any discipline, it can be learned”. Kurakto (2005) goes on to cite
some of the future challenges he sees that lie ahead for entrepreneurship education- firstly
the Maturity/Complacency trap- he is concerned that the successes achieved in including
entrepreneurship on the curriculum of business schools will lead to a complacency.
Secondly, the Faulty Pipeline shortage- this refers to the lack of faculty at every rank with
expertise in entrepreneurship. Thirdly, the Technology Challenge refers to the concern
about the lack of the use of new technologies in the delivery of these programmes.
Fourthly, the ‘Dot-Com’ legacy may have damaged the notion of true entrepreneurship as
individuals pursued the quick pursuit of wealth. Fifthly, the Academia vs Business
incongruence refers to the gap between actual entrepreneurs and academics. Sixthly, the
Dilution Effect refers to the dangers of over-using the term entrepreneurial. Seventhly the
Security-Risk dilemma concerns the risk-averse attitude of many academics as they strive
for tenure, which contrasts with the nature of entrepreneurship that they are teaching.
Eighthly, the Administrative Leadership Revolving Door Problem refers to the sporadic
administrative support that the teaching of entrepreneurship enjoys and finally the Power
of One Challenge refers to the fact that many programmes in entrepreneurship relies on
the enthusiasm and passion of one individual rather than it being incorporated into
mainstream curriculum.
A study by Shinnar et al. (2009) investigated the attitudes of students and faculty towards
entrepreneurship, produced some very interesting findings. The first key finding was that
faculty and students often see things quite differently. Perhaps the most glaring difference
was that faculty perceived students to be significantly less entrepreneurial than the
students perceived themselves to be. More than half the students surveyed rated
themselves on the high end of the entrepreneurial disposition scale, whereas more than 75
per cent of faculty rated their students on the low end of the scale. The substantial
difference between students’ aspirations and faculty’ perceptions raise questions about
existing curriculum structures and assumptions. The significant differences in the ranking
of motivators, according to the authors, could stem from student optimism and lack of
work experience. Another explanation they posited was that faculty’ respondents
projected onto students their own values and motives. A further key finding of the study
was that In fact, more than half of the student population who were not studying business
also expressed an interest in taking an entrepreneurship course. Students of art, drama,
music, architecture and law saw possibilities for themselves running or setting up their
own business in the future. Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) in their assessment and
evaluation of a number of entrepreneurship programmes found that the better or more
successful programmes were those that had the ability to integrate learning across the
general educational experience of the student.
The teaching of entrepreneurship is intended to encourage and stimulate the creation of
new ventures (Vesper and Gartner 1997, Leitch & Harrison 1999, Peterman & Kennedy,
2003). Of particular significance to the research question addressed in this paper is the
study by Edelman et al. (2008). They examined the relevance of entrepreneurship
education by comparing the content of curriculum with the activities of nascent
entrepreneurs. They found that there is a disparity between what is being taught in the
classroom and the cited needs of entrepreneurial individuals- in academia they found
there was an emphasis on research and business planning rather than actions, which led
the authors to conclude that textbooks and lectures should be supplemented with as many
hands-on practical experiences as possible.
Even in good times market economies need entrepreneurial activity but there are a lot of
barriers to entrepreneurship. One of the major ones is perception. According to the GEM
survey of entrepreneurship (2007), Ireland has been the number one country in Europe
for new business start-ups, with a very high proportion of the population perceiving new
business opportunities. However, that has hit downward spiral of late . . . There seems to
be a perception that a downturn in economic activity means that there are no
opportunities". Writing in the Sunday Times, Fitzgerald (2008) believes that one of the
biggest obstacles to economic recovery might be a failure of nerve. Perhaps this is where
our academic institutions can make their biggest contributions – by providing their
students with the skills that will encourage them to have the nerve to create and innovate.
Cooney and Murray (2009) suggest that entrepreneurship education is still in its infancy
in Ireland and that most institutions remain a long way from the cutting edge of
entrepreneurship education in global terms. Their report also highlights the lack of supply
of suitable academic staff to contribute to entrepreneurship modules and that there is a
high dependence within institutions to depend on a single member of staff who “is
championing the cause fro entrepreneurship education within that institution, and should
that individual leave there will be a question mark over the very survival of
entrepreneurship education within that institution” (p83).
METHODOLOGY
This research was case based incorporating a two year period, where the was to explore
the impact of entrepreneurship education on enterprise development. The usefulness of
this research approach has been established in the literature (Hamel et al, 1993). The
study was explanatory in nature. There were many ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions to be
answered in the context of this issue. It is believed that through observation and
systematic interviewing, case study methodology was the most valuable for
understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship education and enterprise
development. The case study method was considered appropriate as it sanctioned the
investigation of contemporary phenomenona within a real life context (Aaker and Day,
1990; Bell, 1993; Yin, 2003). This research application is reinforced by Brown and
Duguid (1991), who suggest, impacting learning and innovation requires one to study and
understand the situation in which practice occurs. While case research may be criticised
for its lack of rigour, the author has followed suggestions from previous investigations
(e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009) to ensure the validity of
the research.
A total of 29 individuals were questioned, 17 from the Republic of Ireland and 12 from
the Northern Ireland.
Questions were posed in five general areas:
• What makes an academic institution entrepreneurial?
• What does entrepreneurship mean to you as a practicing academic?
• How do students benefit from entrepreneurship?
• How do academic institutions support entrepreneurship?
• Are there any inhibitors to entrepreneurship within academic institutions? If so,
what are they?
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection for this study utilised in-depth semi-structured interviews in a field setting
to ensure standardisation. A case protocol, advocated by (Yin, 2009) was designed and
used to guide the structured interview and data collection. The protocol included multi-
diagnostic questions. While most of the data collection was qualitative in nature,
quantitative data was also collected to verify the findings. This use of multiple sources of
evidence enhances both the reliability and validity of the research (Voss et al., 2002; Yin,
2009).
To ensure the quality of the research design a number of validity tests were conducted as
indicated necessary by previous studies (Yin, 2009). Table 2 reviews the approach
applied to ensure the quality of this method. The rest of this section reviews the
information collected and analyses the effects of Entrepreneurship Education on
enterprise path development.
Table 2. Research Validity Tests
Test Approach Used
(1) Construct Validity
Develop sufficient set of operational
measures to reduce subjective judgment
(a) Revised multiple sources of
evidence so that the findings were
based on convergence of both
qualitative and quantitative
information
(b) Established a chain of evidence with
sufficient citations to relevant
portions of the case study transcripts
(c) Asked participants to review draft
case interviews
(2) External validity
Ensure generalisation of findings
The researchers strived to generalise a
particular set of results on to a broader
theory
(3) Reliability
Demonstrate that repetition of the data
collection procedures will result in the
same conclusions
(a) Interviewed multiple subjects within
institutions and responses were
cross-referenced
(b) Created case study notes and
narratives for future reviews and
analysis
FINDINGS
Several respondents commented on the need to widen the concept of entrepreneurship
from a focus on small businesses and spinouts firms, to an understanding that explicitly
encompassed innovation as an academic activity.
At the level of the individual academic, respondents identified entrepreneurship as a
powerful way to cultivate linkages with economic partners from outside institutions and
this was considered to be pivotal in enabling value creation. Several respondents
commented on the structures that create inter-disciplinary rivalry and noted the need to
integrate discipline-based knowledge silos.
The increasing emphasis on entrepreneurship education as a cultural and social
phenomenon was seen as reinforcing the relevance of academics in the creation of new
knowledge. Several respondents commented on the ability of entrepreneurship to
encompass theory and practice in a holistic way. As one respondent suggested:
Entrepreneurs don’t work in a vacuum; they have to fit into a much wider support
environment. To be successful they have to be able to get on with and understand
people in banks and various other agencies and therefore it behoves us to equip
students with these skills.
Respondents reported that they perceived student benefits from entrepreneurship in the
context of personal development and the synergies gained from linking entrepreneurship,
innovation and creativity. Venture project activity was seen as being very demanding by
students but also rewarding and of immense value in terms of career planning and
employability. As one respondent put it, ‘the new battle lines are between the insurgents
and the incumbents and the way to win is not through scale but creativity, imagination
and experimentation’.
When asked about what institutions should do to support entrepreneurship, respondents
commented on the need to penetrate the command and control/Taylorist mindset of some
institutions and ‘reframe’ attitudes to research to encompass creativity, innovation and
entrepreneurship. The role of the institution was seen as particularly important in this
regard in terms of support and reward strategies. One respondent suggested
We have accomplished a huge amount since the mid nineties and we have a much
more positive culture and environment for entrepreneurship now. We need
entrepreneurship to be a new leg for our economic development strategy. Foreign
direct investment has been the main driver of the strategy up until now but we
can't rely on that in the long-term. We are facing competition for that investment
now so we need to develop our own entrepreneurial growth drivers.
Traditional faculty structures were perceived as ‘stovepipes’ that create segmented
analyses of developments across institutions and generate ‘turf battles’ and gridlock and
lack uniformity of purpose. The need for organic structures and more responsive
organisational units was seen as imperative to fulfilling the expectations of policy makers
and the wider economic partners. It was felt that there was a need for institutions to
communicate with all academics in promoting entrepreneurship as an educational priority
in terms of mission and culture. Ireland is still dependent on creating enterprise and
seeking opportunities, for example a responded commented
There are a lot of barriers to entrepreneurship. One of the major ones is
perception. According to the GEM survey of entrepreneurship (2007), Ireland has
been the number one country in Europe for new business start-ups, with a very
high proportion of the population perceiving new business opportunities.
However, that has hit downward spiral of late . . . There seems to be a perception
that a downturn in economic activity means that there are no opportunities
In fast-moving, technologically complex and innovative industry domains, third level
institutions’ ability to keep pace with enterprise development initiatives may force a
rethink of their strategies. As one respondent put it, “it is important that brick walls
which inevitably will be encountered along the way are acknowledged and addressed.
When those moments of crisis occur, staff should be encouraged to develop creative and
innovative solutions to surmount these obstacles”. Technology within industry has
continued to develop exponentially and radical changes have resulted which have
significant implications for education..
One of the institutions researched abandoned its traditional functional structure in favour
of a more flexible team-based structure and a more business-process-oriented way of
doing business. In the new structure, teams report directly to the senior management. As
an incubation manager suggested,
People make better entrepreneurs if they have some life experience - preferable to
have worked in industry and have developed invaluable networks and may have
seen ways of doing things better or more cheaply that gives rise to new business
opportunities.
The changing business landscape is one that calls for fresh ways of thinking. One of the
incubation managers interviewed believes this and has taken on challenging third-level
education initiatives to help steer potential entrepreneurs through the conundrum of
starting and growing businesses in contracting markets. Academics must be mentors and
provide a clear direction and future focus for a business within a time span and move
potential entrepreneurs from an operations focus to a customer and market focus. A
survey respondent accounts how groups of enterprise students are put through a Dragons’
Den-style process where they present the case for their business venture which is then
dissected by their peers.
There is much anecdotal evidence that a scarcity of resources encourages learning and
unlimited resources breed waste and inefficiency. Innovation and adaptation are
encouraged in an environment of shortage, competition and the struggle for relevance. As
a consequence of the downturn in craft skills in Ireland, it is expected that more students
will embark on third level programmes.
As noted by a prominent lecturer in Enterprise Development,
A key point is identifying or creating a need that you can satisfy with your
proposition - see things from the customer perspective, Effective entrepreneurship
therefore requires a marketing approach to identifying inventions or
improvements. Effective marketing starts with realising that a product must
satisfy a customer need and therefore students must learn how to identify and
know who the customer is likely to be and what it will take to satisfy him or her.
Fitzgerald (2008) asserts that the biggest obstacle to getting the good times back might be
a failure of nerve, such as to be sufficiently audacious would be a tragedy for this and
future generations.
People are looking for value propositions in the market - this relates to
manufacturing as well as services in sectors such as retail, leisure and so on. This
offers opportunities for people to deliver value. Value doesn't necessarily mean
cheap, it means quality as well. As academic entrepreneurs it is incumbent on us
to be their champion but also their chief critic.
Conclusion
This research has illustrated that in the main on the Ireland of Ireland, many academics
believe that entrepreneurship is being encouraged, though perhaps not as effectively
across disciplines as it might. Respondents identified entrepreneurship as a powerful way
to cultivate linkages with economic partners from outside institutions and that academic
institutions should develop students to be aware of the importance of absorptive capacity
and how they can contribute to it in organisations.
GEM research (Fitzsimmons and O’Gorman, 2007; 2008) indicates that those providing
an entrepreneurship education must ensure that it reinforces a positive culture towards
entrepreneurship that it is appropriate, of a high quality and widely available.
The importance of marketing an idea and matching needs with demands is crucial to the
development of an enterprise culture within any institution. This concurs with the views
expressed by Kuratko (2005) and Galloway et al. (2005).
An interesting finding is the view that certain skills and behaviours of entrepreneurship
can be taught in an academic setting and this view correlates with views expressed by
other writers, Winter (2000), Galloway et al. (2005), Hay(2004), Gibb(2002, 2005).
There is general consensus that the method in which the concept of entrepreneurship is
taught should be encouraging and stimulating so as to encourage the creating on new
ventures. Edelman et al (2008) are in agreement with this and suggest that there is often a
disparity between what is being taught in the classroom and the needs of entrepreneurial
individuals. The importance of life experiences is highlighted in this research and its
effect on the entrepreneurial nature of the student.
One other finding from this research is the relevance of having an enterprising lecturer or
facilitator of entrepreneurship and the effect of the personal characteristics of the
individuals at the helm of the module. This has been highlighted also by work completed
by Shinner et al (2009) and Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) and Cooney and Murray (2008).
Without the supply of enthusiastic and enterprising staff, the very concept of teaching
entrepreneurship will be lost. Throughout this research, it was continually stated by
respondents, that entrepreneurship is not just a module for the business faculty, but
should be taught cross discipline. Ireland is “facing competition … so we need to develop
our own entrepreneurial growth drivers”.
In conclusion, it can be argued that Ireland is an emerging educator of entrepreneurship.
We are not as proficient at this task as other countries and this may be down to a number
of factors including a high dependency on foreign direct investment, a shortage of leading
entrepreneurship teaching staff and the celtic tiger era that we experienced for the lat 20
years. As educators, it is our duty, across all disciplines to encourage our students to
identify and take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities. This will be reflected in the
manner in which we teach as well as a desire to bring the country to a new economic high
where individuals can be encouraged not to be reliant on foreign direct investment, but
can see and evaluate business opportunities and risks and mak entrepreneurship a core
element of the learning experience at all age levels.
References
Aaker, D., & Day, G. (1990); Marketing Research. (4
th
Ed.). London: J. Wiley & Sons.
Aldrich, H. (1999) Organizations Evolving, Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
Baron, R.A., & Markman, G.D. (2000); Beyond social capital: how social skills can
enhance entrepreneurs’ success. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 106-116.
Bell, J. (1993); Doing your research project: A guide for first time researchers in
education & social science, (2
nd ed
.). Milton Keynes: Open University.
Binks, M. Starkey, K. and Mahon, C. L. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship Education and the
Business School’ Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1–
18, February
Birkinshaw, J., Buckland, W. and Hatcher, A. (2003); Inventuring – Why Big Companies
Must Think Small, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991); Organisational learning and communities-of-practice:
toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Special issue; Organisational
Learning: Papers in honour of (and by) James G. March. Organisational Science, 2
(Special Issue). 40-57.
Cooney T. M., Murray T.M. (2008) Entrepreneurship Education in the Third Level
Sector in Ireland, A report presented to the National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship (U.K.) August 2008
De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K. and Van der Sijde, P. (2003), Education and
training for entrepreneurs: a consideration of initiatives in Ireland and The Netherlands,
Education & Training, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 430-8
Delmar, F. and Shane, S. (2003) ‘Does Business Planning Facilitate the Development of
New Ventures?’ Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp. 1165–1185.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989); Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 552-550.
Fitzgerald, D. (2008) ‘Securing our Prosperity’, The Sunday Times, 19
th
May, Dublin.
Fitzsimons, P. and O’Gorman, C. (2007), Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2007, Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Dublin City University, Dublin.
Fitzsimons, P. and O’Gorman, C. (2008), Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2008, Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Dublin City University, Dublin.
Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002), “Entrepreneurship Education at University: a Driver
in the Creation of High Growth Firms”, Education þ Training, Vol. 44, no. 8/9, pp. 398-
408.
Forfas (2004), Enterprise Strategy Group- Ahead of the curve, Ireland’s place in the
global economy, Enterprise Ireland, Dublin.
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, No.
3, pp. 233-269.
Gibb, A. (2005) ‘Towards the Entrepreneurial University - Entrepreneurship Education as
a Lever for Change’ National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Policy Paper.
Greiner, L. (1972); Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow, Harvard Business
Review, July-August.
Gartner, W. B. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of
New Venture Creation’ Academy of Management Review, 10(4) pp. 696–706.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993); Case Study Methods, London: Sage
Publications.
Hay, M. (2004); Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Executive Report.
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, no. 1, pp. 11-23.
Kuratko, D. F., (2005) ‘The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development,
Trends and Challenges’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 577-597.
Edelmanm, L., Manolva, T., and Brush, C. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurship Education:
Correspondence between Practices of Nascent Entrepreneurs and Textbook Prescriptions
for Success’, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 56-70.
Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American
Entrepreneurship Education’ Journal of Business Venturing, 18(20, pp. 283-300.
Katz J. A. (2008) ‘Fully Mature but Not Fully Legitimate: A Different Perspective on the
State of Entrepreneurship Education’ Journal of Small Business Management 2008 46(4)
pp. 550–566
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R. M., (2004) Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice,
Mason, OH, South-Western College Publishers
.
Lambert, R. (2003), Business-University Collaboration, HMSO, Norwich.
Leitch, C. and Harrison, R. (1999) ‘A Process Model for Entrepreneurship Education and
Development’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3)
pp.83–100.
Low, M., and Abramson, M. (1997) ‘Movements, Bandwagons, and Clones: Industry
Evolution and the Entrepreneurial Process’ Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6) pp.
435–458.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994); Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage
Publications.
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003) ‘Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’
Perceptions of Entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2) pp.129–
144.
Shinnar, R, Pruett, M., Toney, B. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes across
Campus’ Journal of Education for Business, Jan/Feb pp. 251-258
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005), Managing Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. 1997. ‘Measuring progress in Entrepreneurship Education’.
Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4) pp.403–421.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M. (2002); Case Research: Case Research in
Operations Management. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 22 (2), 195-215.
Wickham, P. A. (2006); Strategic Entrepreneurship, 4
th
Edition, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Winter, S. (2000); The Satisficing principle in capability learning, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21, 10-11, pp. 981-996.
Yin, R. K. (2003); Applications of Case Study Research. (2
nd
Ed.), London. Sage Pubs.
Yin, R. K. (2009); Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (2
nd
ed.), London: Sage
Pubs.
doc_419431151.pdf