Description
In such a detailed criteria examines entrepreneurship education a compendium of related issues.
Reference No.: WP2005-14
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre
Working Papers
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION - A COMPENDIUM OF RELATED ISSUES
July 2005
Lena Lee
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre
National University of Singapore
14 Prince George’s Park
Singapore 118413
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 65- 68745964
Fax: 65-67732269
Poh-Kam Wong
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre
National University of Singapore
Copyright ©2005, NUS Entrepreneurship Centre, NUS. All rights reserved.
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Current years have witnessed the ongoing interest in entrepreneurship, which is
essentially understood as the emergence and growth of new businesses (Rosa et al., 1996). A
wide range of factors have contributed to the revival of interest in entrepreneurship in USA,
Europe and many other countries. In recent years, many industrialized countries have suffered
from economic recessions and high unemployment rates. Given the prevailing economic
conditions, policy makers worldwide have now begun to recognize the instrumental role of
entrepreneurship for economic growth. New and growing businesses are seen as a solution to
rising unemployment rates, and as a major catalyst to national economic prosperity (Acs et al.,
1999; Bruyat and J ulien, 2000).
As a result of the proliferating emphasis worldwide on entrepreneurship as the catalyst
for economic development and job creation, policy makers have developed a wide array of
measures to support entrepreneurship (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994; Maillat, 1998). Key among
these is the call for academic institutions, such as universities, to contribute through appropriate
educational programs, i.e. entrepreneurship education (Laukkanen, 2000). There appears to be a
consensus that entrepreneurship education and training has a major role to play in the economic
development of a country (Gibb, 1996). The nature, relevance and appropriateness of
entrepreneurship education have been subject to increasing scrutiny since the late 1960s (Vesper,
1985) and it has been touted as an effective means of entrepreneurial learning (J ohannisson,
1991). Indeed, entrepreneurship education has become an obvious complement to venture
3
capital and incubators as tools in propelling economic advancement (McMullan and Long,
1987).
Whilst there clearly is a rise in entrepreneurial spirit and hence, an increase in
entrepreneurship education across nations worldwide
1
, information supporting these assertions
and descriptions of the roles of entrepreneurship education to educate and inspire individuals
remain largely scattered and sporadic. This chapter aims to consolidate and synthesize the issues
surrounding university entrepreneurship education such as whether or not entrepreneurship can
be taught, the structure, effectiveness, and potential growth of entrepreneurship courses, ethical
issues as well as new perspectives on entrepreneurship education.
2. ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION – AN OVERVIEW
Interest in entrepreneurship education grew rapidly in the late 1950s and early 1960s
when some of the most well-known studies in entrepreneurship like McClelland’s The Achieving
Society (1961) and Collins, Moore, and Umwalla’s The Enterprising Man (1964) were
published. Over the years, entrepreneurship education has climbed the ranks in the business
domain and was positioned sixth in importance out of the 60 recommendations on the solutions
to the major problems facing small businesses presented at the White House Conference on
Small Business (Solomon and Fernald, 1991).
There are various definitive labels used to explain entrepreneurship education. The term
“entrepreneurship education” is commonly used in the USA and Canada but less commonly
4
applied in Europe in the early 1980s (Gibb, 1993). The preferred term within the UK and Irish
contexts was “enterprise education” but by the early 1990s, the concept of “enterprise” gradually
converged to “entrepreneurship” (Gibb, ibid.). Essentially, Gibb made a clear distinction
between “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” education with the former focusing on the
advancement of personal enterprising attributes and attitudes that prepare the individual for self-
employment, while the latter relates to the development of functional management skills and
abilities that train the individual to start, manage, and develop a business (Gibb and Nelson, 1996
p.98). Despite this distinction, the ultimate aim of both enterprise and entrepreneurship education
is to encourage independent business creation.
2.1 The dichotomy of entrepreneurship: Nature vs. Nurture
In the midst of continuous growth in the number of universities offering entrepreneurship
courses, opinions abound on the issue of whether entrepreneurship can be taught and anecdotes
about whether entrepreneurs are born or bred fill discussions in international journals and
conferences. Commentators such as Rae and Carswell (2001) and Shepherd and Douglas (1997)
argued that there is a distinction between the teachable and the non teachable elements of
entrepreneurship. The key to a successful entrepreneurship education is to find the most effective
way to manage the teachable skills and identify the best match between student needs and
teaching techniques (Katz, 1991). This concurs with the findings of an earlier study conducted by
Vesper (1971) who highlighted that the debate concerns not how entrepreneurship can be taught
but how it can best be taught.
5
As discussed by J ack and Anderson (1998), the teaching of entrepreneurship is both a
“science” and “art” where the former relates to the functional skills required for business start-up
(an area which appears to be teachable) while the latter refers to the creative aspects of
entrepreneurship, which are not explicitly teachable. There is a unanimous agreement among
entrepreneurship educators that there needs to be a shift of emphasis on the “scientific” to the
“artistic” and creative teaching of entrepreneurship (Shepherd and Douglas, 1997). Although the
focus of most entrepreneurship courses and training lies in the “scientific” dimension of
entrepreneurship, it has been acknowledged that entrepreneurship education helps ignites the
artistic, creative, and perceptual aspects of entrepreneurship (Shepherd and Douglas, ibid.).
Indeed, recent evidence in the literature indicates that entrepreneurship education has a
positive impact on perceptual factors such as self-efficacy (Cox et al., 2002/2003). The authors
compared students who had not begun an entrepreneurship course (pre-course group) with those
who had completed the course (post-course group), and found that the post-course group had
significantly higher self-efficacy than the pre-course group. Similarly, in a pre-test/post-test
study, Peterman and Kennedy (2003) observed that participants reported significantly higher
perceptions of both desirability and feasibility after completing the Young Achievement
Australia (YAA) entrepreneurship program.
From a different perspective, (Dana, 2001) posited that the question of whether
entrepreneurship can be taught depends on the fundamental definition of entrepreneurship. He
discussed both the Schumpeterian and Austrian definitions of entrepreneurship and argued that it
is possible to train potential entrepreneurs to identify opportunities but difficult to teach them the
6
art of creating opportunities. Fundamentally, Dana argued that Kirznerian entrepreneurship
(opportunity identification) is teachable but not Schumpeterian entrepreneurship (opportunity
creation). Further, Saks and Gaglio (2002) added that while it is possible to teach participants of
entrepreneurship programs to evaluate opportunities, the innate ability to recognize opportunities
remains virtually non-teachable. As Saee (1996) asserted, entrepreneurship education can only
demonstrate the process involved in being successful, but cannot create an entrepreneur as the
individual is ultimately responsible for his/her own success.
Collectively, evidence in the existing literature delineates that only specific aspects of
entrepreneurship are explicitly teachable, and it may be necessary to teach people how to be
entrepreneurs (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994). As Professor Howard Stevenson of Harvard
University eloquently put it: “You cannot teach someone to become a Bill Gates, (neither can
you) teach someone to compose like Beethoven. But you can teach someone the notes and
scales, give them the tools they need to become a composer. And you can teach the tools people
need to be entrepreneurs”. Therefore, the issues surrounding the provision of entrepreneurship
education merits further attention, and are explored further in the ensuing sections.
3. STRUCTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP COURSES
3.1 Objectives of entrepreneurship education
Generally, entrepreneurship education aims to increase the awareness of entrepreneurship
as a career option, and enhance the understanding of the process involved in initiating and
7
managing a new business enterprise (Hills, 1988; Donckels, 1991). Following Interman’s (1992)
detailed typology of entrepreneurship, there are four objectives of entrepreneurship programs:
entrepreneurship awareness, business creation, small business development, and training of
trainers.
2
Similarly, J amieson (1984) suggested that entrepreneurship education provides three
different classes of training: education “about” enterprise (i.e. entrepreneurship awareness),
education “for” enterprise (i.e. preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for business creation), and
education “in” enterprise (i.e. training for the growth and development of established
entrepreneurs). A recent study by Parker (2005) stressed the importance of education and
training for existing entrepreneurs as it was found that entrepreneurs learned rather slowly and
they tend to rely disproportionately on prior beliefs and past experiences.
In contrast, commentators such as J ohannisson (1991) posited that entrepreneurship
education has five learning objectives in that participants of entrepreneurship programs will
develop the know why (developing the right attitudes and motivation for start-up); know how
(acquiring the technical abilities and skills needed to develop a business); know who (fostering
networks and contacts for entrepreneurial ventures); know when (achieving the sharp intuition to
act at the correct moment); and know what (attaining the knowledge base and information for
new venture development) aspects of entrepreneurial learning.
In a broader context, the four main objectives of entrepreneurship education appear to be
i) prepare participants for career success ii) increase their capacity for future learning iii) realize
participants’ personal fulfillment and iv) contribute to society (Sexton and Kasarda, 1992).
Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994) extended this characterization by advancing that the goal of
8
entrepreneurship is to effectively foster all these objectives for the creation of new businesses.
Given the high investment of resources in entrepreneurship education,
3
a general consensus
emerges in the literature that the primary aim of these programs is the promotion of the
successful formation of new ventures (Curran and Stanworth, 1989). Supporting this assertion,
McMullan and Long (1987) argued that unlike other university degrees, the success of
entrepreneurship programs cannot be evaluated by the number of students graduated but more
appropriately measured by the socioeconomic impact they produce in the businesses they create.
Issues such as the number of companies created, the number of jobs created, the types of
companies formed, and the growth potential of the companies are essential for economic growth
(Sternberg and Wennekers, 2005; Wong et al., 2005).
The view that entrepreneurship education and hence, entrepreneurship courses need to be
differentiated by stages of venture development rather than by functional expertise has been
acknowledged for some time (McMullan and Long, ibid.).
4
Specifically, the implications that
learning needs of individuals vary according to the stages of development such as awareness,
pre-start-up, start-up, growth, and maturity. According to McMullan and Long, the typical skill
required at a particular stage is as follows: opportunity identification at the awareness stage,
market feasibility at pre-start-up and new venture planning during start-up.
Although there are no definitive objectives of entrepreneurship education, the aims of
such programs and trainings are probably best summarized as i) identifying and preparing
potential entrepreneurs for start-ups ii) enabling participants to prepare business plans for new
venture iii) focusing on issues that are critical to the implementation of entrepreneurial projects
9
such as market research, business financing and legal issues and iv) enabling the development of
autonomous and risk-taking behavior (Garavan and O’Cinneide, ibid.).
3.2 Contents of entrepreneurship education
The philosophical underpinning of entrepreneurship courses is that the participants of
these courses can influence the external environment and that they are not bounded by the
intricacies in the environment. This philosophical perspective is closely related to the locus of
control theory that elucidates the positive relationship between internal locus of control and
entrepreneurial start-ups (Hansemark, 2003). Studies by Hansemark (1998) and J ennings and
Zeithamil (1983) reported that participation in an entrepreneurship program increases internal
locus of control. It is expected that individuals are able to apply the skills and knowledge that
they have acquired through entrepreneurship education and training to venture-related decision
making. Some of the typical skills required for start-ups are knowledge on how to raise finance,
the legal and tax framework, marketing, and recruitment (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994),
resulting in the development of more practical-based entrepreneurship programs at the expense
of conceptual development (Sexton and Bowman, 1984).
In response to entrepreneurs’ demands for entrepreneurship education, a new age of
learning that consists of outreach programs is offered to existing entrepreneurs instead of the
usual pool of students (McMullan et al., 1986). Basically, the common elements in an
entrepreneurship course include lectures, venture plan writing, entrepreneurial speakers, business
cases, and more recently, the use of live video of entrepreneurs featured in cases (Gartner and
10
Vesper, 1994). In an attempt to advocate a framework and methodology for entrepreneurship
education, Knight (1987) suggested that the following elements be included in entrepreneurship
programs: opportunity identification, strategy development, resource acquisition, and
implementation.
Supporting McMullan and Long’s (1987) proposition that entrepreneurship education
should be structured based on the different skills needed at various stages of the firm’s
development, Gartner and Vesper (ibid.) augmented that the skills and knowledge required to
understand business entry (entrepreneurship) differ from the skills and knowledge required to
comprehend the operations of an ongoing business (business management). In one of his earlier
research, Gibb (1993) distinguished the learning focus of business school from entrepreneurship
education. He argued that some entrepreneurship programs employ the curriculum of business
schools that is not compatible in an entrepreneurial situation.
5
The values and abilities emphasized by business schools may actually inhibit
entrepreneurial spirit. As noted by Kao (1994), the management model of teaching does not
apply to entrepreneurship; hence, distinctive curricula and training programs are needed for
entrepreneurship education. However, Zeithaml and Rice (1987) cautioned that although
education for entrepreneurship and education for small business management are not the same
thing, the two terms are so closely associated that it is almost impossible to study one without
considering the other.
6
Entrepreneurship courses stress the equivocal elements of start-ups such
as the development of new organizations, new products, and new markets while business
management courses emphasize the knowledge and skills required for business practices.
11
In terms of the division between undergraduate and graduate courses in entrepreneurship,
more courses are offered at the undergraduate level in universities (Gartner and Vesper, ibid.).
Brush et al. (2003) in their research on entrepreneurship education at different levels found that
deans of business schools were increasingly placing more importance on entrepreneurship at the
undergraduate than at the graduate levels. From the contents aspect, Zeithaml and Rice’s (ibid.)
survey of schools of varying sizes and their offerings of entrepreneurship courses at the graduate
and undergraduate levels suggested that the structure of entrepreneurship education programs are
quite similar throughout the United States at both levels (i.e. each school offers one general
course usually aimed at the development of a new business, followed by consulting experience
with a small business that is facing difficulties). In terms of duration, most of these
entrepreneurship programs last as short as a few days (Curran and Stanworth, 1989), while others
range from 25 days to 12 months (Garavan and O’Cinneide, ibid.).
In their interesting 1991 paper, Robinson and Haynes (1991) introduced the terms
“depth” and “breadth” of entrepreneurship education programs. Depth relates to the quality of
program, while breadth refers to the number of entrepreneurship programs available. The authors
proposed that the higher the quality of the program, the greater the commitment to, and
formalization of academic programs, the more will be the institutional resources committed, the
higher will be the financial aid, and the greater will be the number of extracurricular
organizations (clubs, societies) available. In their survey of 215 colleges/universities, Robinson
and Haynes reported that 81.5% of the schools they studied had at least one undergraduate
course and 54.2% offered one graduate course. Additionally, 61.1% of the universities had a
formal organization e.g. centers/ departments established for entrepreneurship education.
12
The challenge for entrepreneurship educators is to enhance the quality of existing
programs in existing institutions, i.e. improving the depth of the field, and not merely extending
existing entrepreneurship courses and programs to other institutions, i.e. developing the breadth
of the field (Robinson and Haynes, ibid.). However, the major stumbling block for such
development has been the lack of solid theoretical bases upon which pedagogical models and
methods are built. Thus, the authors affirmed the need for institutions of higher learning to
develop graduate doctoral programs that prepare future faculty in entrepreneurship education.
Plaschka and Welsch (1990) found some commentators in the field who believe that it is
possible to map out a framework of entrepreneurship program that aims at developing a
competent curriculum for entrepreneurship education. With this objective in mind, Plaschka and
Welsch proposed two frameworks. The first framework consists of two dimensions, number of
entrepreneurship courses that are offered and degree of integration. Number of courses range
from a single course to multiple courses, while degree of integration represents the level of
acceptance and support from a variety of different groups. Support can be sought from intra-
university groups such as other faculty members, inter-university groups such as alumni and
entrepreneurs and complementary entrepreneurship activities such as entrepreneurship clubs or
organizations. This framework is a matrix that extends from “unsupported isolated course” to
“integrated program”.
7
When more and more courses are offered to participants, the ideal path
will be for education providers to adopt the “integrated program” strategy where multiple
courses are integrated both with one another and with the curriculum.
13
The second framework is based on two paths: transition stages and functional fields. The
transition stages are inception, survival, growth, expansion, and maturity, while functional fields
refer to the different disciplines of the entrepreneurship curriculum such as marketing,
management, and finance. Entrepreneurship educators could conduct courses within a single
discipline like marketing, focusing on start-ups (“Unidisciplinary Approach”) or introduce
multiple disciplines in the entrepreneurship curriculum, focusing on mature firms
(“Interdisciplinary Program”).
8
This framework suggests that there is no best strategy for
curriculum development as the choice of design depends on the stage of the firm’s development
and the focus of the curriculum (unidiscipline vs. multi-discipline).
In a recent study, Béchard and Toulouse (1998) provided a comprehensive review of how
entrepreneurship programs are developed. Based on their report, they proposed that the contents
of entrepreneurship programs can be planned from four perspectives. First, program contents can
be developed from the perspective of the educators, where the curriculum is defined based on the
expertise of the educators. Second, entrepreneurship program can be established based on the
students’ needs and requirements. This approach takes into account the learning requirements of
each individual. Third, the entrepreneurship syllabus can be analyzed from the viewpoint of
those who design them. This view considers the key learning/teaching objectives as the anchor of
entrepreneurship curriculum. Fourth, the evaluators of the programs themselves can influence the
curriculum. This approach allows evaluators to make adjustments to the program contents
according to the pre-set criteria for program quality and effectiveness. Depending on the host
institution and level of priority, there is no one best perspective for program development.
9
14
From the review presented, it is evident that despite the increase in entrepreneurship
programs, there is still no generally accepted curriculum for aspiring entrepreneurs to follow
(Plaschka and Welsch, ibid,; Koch, 2002/2003). Many programs evolve on a trial and error basis,
depending on the types of entrepreneurial projects undertaken and on the feedback of students
who have enrolled on the courses. However, the authors cautioned that these are not necessarily
poor approaches to program development as long as there is a mechanism that systematically
documents the feedback. Moreover, given the changing nature and relatively young discipline of
entrepreneurship, Saks and Gaglio (2002) noted that it will be impossible to find unanimous
agreement on the teaching content of entrepreneurship education.
3.3 Approaches to entrepreneurship education
The considerable variety of entrepreneurial programs offered in the market is also found
in the variety of learning methods employed in entrepreneurship education and training. From a
broad perspective, the approaches to entrepreneurship education can be classified into four
categories: the “old war stories” approach, the “case study” approach, the “planning” approach,
and the “generic action” approach (Shepherd and Douglas, 1997). Each of these approaches
differs from each other in terms of its focus and purpose. The “old war stories” approach
attempts to motivate aspiring entrepreneurs by relaying a series of successful entrepreneurship
stories and revealing how those individuals became successful entrepreneurs. The “case study”
approach uses cases of existing companies to analyze the mechanics of the entrepreneurial
process and to elicit students’ proposed solutions to the companies’ problems. The “planning”
approach usually takes the form of a business plan that consists of detailed objectives, budgets,
15
and programs, while the “generic action” approach emphasizes the formulation of optimal
entrepreneurial actions based on existing market forces.
On the other hand, from a micro perspective, the study by Solomon et al. (2002)
highlighted that the most popular teaching methods in entrepreneurship education are creation of
business plans, case studies, and lectures. Some commentators, like McMullan and Long (1987),
are of the opinion that entrepreneurship education should be creatively grounded and that
students should be exposed to problem solving and taught strategies to deal with ambiguous and
complex situations. Apart from this, students should also be exposed to substantial hands-on
working experience with community ventures. Stumpf et al. (1991) supported this view when
they highlighted the applicability of behavioral simulations in entrepreneurship programs. Hills
(1988), in his survey of fifteen leading educators in the field, found that courses had been created
around the production of business plans with an emphasis on market feasibility analysis.
Additionally, he reported that educators preferred to develop courses around business life cycles
i.e. start-up, growing firms, and established firms. In other studies, McMullan and Boberg (1991)
and Preshing (1991) observed that students generally favored the project method as compared to
the case method of teaching entrepreneurship.
Further to the recommendation of approaches in entrepreneurship education, Carsrud
(1991) postulated that apart from full-time academia, other components of the entrepreneurship
infrastructure such as endowed faculty, research centers, professional organizations, journals,
and the mass media provided significant support for entrepreneurship education. Sandberg and
Gatewood (1991) highlighted the pivotal role of entrepreneurship centers as the intermediary
16
between faculty and business community. In essence, the agendas and constituency orientations
of entrepreneurship centers facilitated the teaching of entrepreneurship by bridging the gap
between business schools and the community.
Thus, while there is a substantial array of teaching methods employed in entrepreneurship
education, there is little intellectual cohesion among these efforts, and the literature seems to
indicate that there is no one best pedagogical approach for teaching entrepreneurship (Garavan
and O’Cinneide, 1994; Kolb et al. 1974). Nevertheless, the “learning” approach proposed by
Shepherd and Douglas (ibid.) has been touted as an effective path towards developing the
entrepreneurial spirit. This approach requires the shift in emphasis from teaching to learning and
it recognizes the importance of learning through hands-on and active participation in a real life
entrepreneurial environment where constructive feedback from an expert is provided.
3.4 Profile of participants of entrepreneurship education
There is great diversity among the participants of entrepreneurship programs and various
categories have been proposed in the literature. Generally, a high percentage of students are
practitioners who choose to embark on an entrepreneurial program to acquire new knowledge
and skills which they can assimilate into their businesses (McMullan & Long, 1987). Garavan
and O’Cinneide (1994) identified three categories of participants: first, participants who had no
project idea for starting a business but who within a specified period of starting the program
would find one; second, participants who had already a concrete idea of starting a business; and
third, participants who had only a basic and tentative idea of starting a business. In stark contrast,
17
Birley (1984) classified entrepreneurship into three sets of potential customers: conventional
full-time students; entrepreneurs (those who are just starting businesses and those who are
managing ongoing businesses); and third, business advisors such as bankers, accountants and
government policy makers.
From a planning viewpoint, Hynes (1996) suggested that entrepreneurship education
should be incorporated into the non-business disciplines of engineering and science where
product ideas emerge but are often ignored because students are not sufficiently educated in the
knowledge and skills required for start-ups. In light of this, there is a growing trend towards
university-wide programs in entrepreneurship education (Streeter et al., 2002). According to
Streeter and his associates, the core objective of university-wide programs is to extend the
opportunity of entrepreneurship education to all students in the university, regardless of their
faculty or subject major. As entrepreneurship education transcends all fields of studies, it is no
longer associated exclusively with business graduates. In response to the promising appeal of
entrepreneurship education across faculties, business schools have joined forces with other
departments within the university to offer students customized entrepreneurship courses, where
the curriculum addresses the integration of the complex processes of entrepreneurship with
respect to the specialized technical areas of their respective field of studies (Streeter et al., ibid.).
Further evidence of the value of entrepreneurship education for non-business disciplines
of engineering and science is highlighted in a recent study of high-tech entrepreneurs in the U.S.
where the lack of knowledge and understanding about starting a business was perceived as a
major obstacle to high-tech entrepreneurship (Kourilsky and Walstad, 2002).
10
In a broader
18
context, Brush (1992) and Krueger (1993) proposed that entrepreneurship education should also
be targeted at students from families with entrepreneurs as these individuals generally tend to
have a more positive attitude towards this type of education.
In recent years, both researchers and policy makers, particularly in the U.K. have hailed
the need for entrepreneurship educators to focus on students at the pre-university level i.e.
secondary school. Commentators like Chamard (1989) and Singh (1990) believe that existing
secondary school systems inhibit entrepreneurship and do not foster the development of an
enterprise culture among the students. Similarly, Filion (1994) and Gasse (1985) emphasized the
importance of identifying and cultivating entrepreneurial potential at the secondary school level
when the individuals’ career options are still open.
The key for entrepreneurship education providers is to understand that, given the wide
variety of entrepreneurship programs on offer, it is not surprising that different types of programs
will attract different groups of participants (J ack and Anderson, 1998). Not all participants of
entrepreneurship education have the intention to start a new business as some simply embark on
a program to enhance their knowledge of the field, a field that is very popular and rapidly
growing in the present-day (Block and Stumpf, 1992; J ack and Anderson, ibid.). The challenge
for entrepreneurship educators is to target their courses and training programs to all interested
parties, including to those who have no direct intention to become entrepreneurs because these
non-interested groups may very well provide the supporting base to existing and potential
entrepreneurs.
19
However, it is important that the entrepreneurship curricula match the needs of different
participants. Past studies have shown that entrepreneurs are often reluctant to participate in the
courses offered by local colleges and university because they perceived that these courses are too
theoretical and ‘academically oriented’ (McCarthy et al., 1997). For example, in response to the
possible mismatch between the expectations of undergraduate students and the business
community, McCarthy et al. proposed an entrepreneurship program that enhances the real-life
practical experiences of these students while providing assistance to businesses that are
struggling with post start-up problems. Their proposed model aimed at benefiting both the
undergraduates and the business community.
3.5 Deliverers of entrepreneurship courses
The literature calls for a balance between academics and practitioners, known as
teamwork teaching in the delivery of entrepreneurship education (McMullan and Long, 1987).
11
Academics usually contribute and provide evidence based on theoretically grounded studies
while practitioners teach by providing practical examples of how to make things happen.
Practitioners who teach entrepreneurship are given a job title that reflects this non-faculty status,
e.g. Adjunct Faculty. There is a general consensus in the field that adjunct faculties are “useful
additions” to the teaching team, however, they are not builders of intellectual capital, which is
critical for long-term legitimacy (Hills, 1988). Entrepreneurship education may also entail
cooperative teaching from faculties across a number of different schools such as management,
engineering, law, and computer science. Endowed positions or chairs in entrepreneurship are
common among members of the entrepreneurship teaching team (Katz, 1991). Based on Katz’s
20
study, the first endowed position in entrepreneurship was in 1963 at Georgia State University,
and the second one was in 1975. By 1985, there were a total of 25 endowed positions in the U.S.,
and the number has continued rising over the years, reaching a total of 102, 123, 271 and 406
positions in 1990, 1994, 1999 and 2003 respectively.
12
Endowed positions outside of the U.S.
grew from 4 in 1991 to 34, and 158 in 1999 and 2003 respectively.
A major weakness in the supply of entrepreneurship educators is the lack of doctoral
programs in entrepreneurship to feed trained academics into the career pipeline (Saks and
Gaglio, 2002). Even with existing entrepreneurship doctorates, these individuals usually come
from other disciplines like organizational behavior, marketing, and finance, producing a wide
range of backgrounds among entrepreneurship researchers. The cross-disciplinary background of
these researchers have contributed to the plethora of entrepreneurship studies that draw on
various theories from the fields of psychology (e.g. Krueger and Dickson, 1994), economics (e.g.
Evans and Leighton, 1990), strategy (e.g. Hitt et al., 2001) and organization behavior (e.g. Hult
et al., 2003). However, the diverse backgrounds of these scholars have contributed to
entrepreneurship education’s struggle in establishing itself as a legitimate field, distinct from
other disciplines (Brush et al., 2003). What accounts for the lack of specific entrepreneurial
doctoral programs? The answer probably lies in the inherent difficulty of developing an
entrepreneurship program that balances both research and practical business. The rapid growth of
entrepreneurship education at the undergraduate level has far outstripped the development of
postgraduate courses, particularly doctorate offerings in entrepreneurship, resulting in an under-
supply of doctoral-trained entrepreneurship faculty to develop the field’s scholarly research and
knowledge (Brush et al., ibid.).
21
4. EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Many researchers including Block and Stumpf (1992) and Curran and Stanworth (1989)
have identified the need for evaluating entrepreneurship education and training programs. In the
extant literature, there are numerous studies that attempt to measure the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education and training. Yet, implementing an effective research design to
isolate the effects of different programs across universities is a monumental task. The vast
majority of studies that attempt to examine the link between entrepreneurship education and new
venture creation suffer from intrinsic procedural and methodological limitations (Curran and
Storey, 2002; Gorman and Hanlon, 1997).
13
Longitudinal research designs, using control groups
to compare participants with individuals who did not have entrepreneurial educational
experience are needed to examine the lasting effects of entrepreneurship education and training
interventions. As Gorman and Hanlon (ibid.:71) asserted, “since the cumulative impact of
repeated exposure to education for entrepreneurship should be expected to have a much greater
impact on attitudes and propensity, a difficult but important challenge for researchers will be to
measure the overall effectiveness of these programs”.
There is unequivocal consensus among researchers that one of the primary economic
measures of entrepreneurship program effectiveness is the number of new businesses started
(McMullan et al., 2001). The literature provides evidence of the positive relationship between
entrepreneurship education and the number of venture start-ups. Individuals who have attended
entrepreneurship courses have a higher tendency to start their own businesses at some point in
their career than those who attended other courses (Charney and Libecap, 2000
14
; McMullan and
22
Gillin, 1998).
15
Clouse (1990),
16
Garnier and Gasse (1990)
17
, and Garnier et al. (1991)
18
provided
additional evidence that participation in an entrepreneurship program has a positive impact on
one’s decision to start a new venture. In a similar vein, Price and Monroe (1992)
19
found that
entrepreneurship training has a positive relationship with venture growth and development.
McMullan et al. (1985) measured venture creation activities of students taking three or
more new venture development courses at the MBA level of University of Calgary and found a
relatively high start-up rate among the graduates, i.e. 14% of the graduates started businesses.
Similarly, Brown et al. (1987) surveyed participants of an entrepreneurship program called
“Your Future in Business” that aims to address the education needs of potential and existing
entrepreneurs, and they concluded that a significant number of new ventures were created by the
graduates of the program. Furthermore, education and training of entrepreneurs have been
repeatedly cited as an effective way to reduce small business failure (Carrier, 1999).
20
The contribution of entrepreneurship education in society is well documented in the
literature. As noted by Galloway and Brown (2002), in addition to developing skills for business
start-up and ownership, entrepreneurship education makes a significant contribution in terms of
the quality of graduate start-ups, and it influences general attitudes to entrepreneurship in the
long term. In Galloway and Brown’s view, entrepreneurship education represents a positive
motivation in terms of promoting entrepreneurship as a respectable and valuable career option.
E.E inevitably influences the population’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship and assists
in the creation and maintenance of an enterprising culture. In the long run, it helps build a risk
23
tolerant and entrepreneurial society. Entrepreneurship courses also prepare participants for
intrapreneurial challenges in large corporations where skills such as creativity, innovation and
proactiveness are essential. As an integral component in the venture support system,
entrepreneurship education compliments incubators, science parks, and venture capital
operations in backing various actors of the entrepreneurial economy. These actors may use the
knowledge and know how acquired from the entrepreneurship courses to grow existing
businesses. In addition, these courses may also serve as entrepreneurial networking platforms for
the participants. Hence, the evaluation of the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education goes
beyond traditional business start-up measures.
5. POTENTIAL GROWTH OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
The growth in entrepreneurship education is evident by the avalanche of entrepreneurship
centers, chairs, conferences, journals and programs (Plaschka and Welsch 1990). In recent years,
entrepreneurship education has been associated with rising professional associations that operate
through a network of formal and informal groups. At the conferences of these associations,
theoretician-researchers socialize with practitioners; junior members meet with senior authors
and professors, and colleagues join together to share recent information, developments and
innovations in the field.
21
The growth of entrepreneurship education goes well beyond the U.S.
As reported in Brockhaus’s (1991) study, entrepreneurship is recognized as a major tool for
economic development worldwide, beyond both the U.S. and Europe. Universities worldwide
(including former communist countries) not only offer entrepreneurship courses but also conduct
consistent stream of practical and theoretical research on entrepreneurship issues.
24
The prevailing question in the field is what the future of entrepreneurship education is
and can it achieve legitimacy like other business disciplines? The answer is presently unknown
but there are many promising signs indeed; key among these are the development of
entrepreneurship program and centers; the increase in publication outlets and tightening of
quality controls on published research; the growth of professional organizations; the proliferation
of sources of funding; and the rise of endowed positions.
22
Evidence indicate that
entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities is spreading rapidly and steadily over the
years and given its positive contribution to the economy it is not likely that demand for
entrepreneurship education will dissipate in the coming years.
The entrepreneurship field has gained considerable momentum over the years and has
achieved the greatest growth rate in the United States (Dana, 1992). Dana also found that in
1970, 25 institutions of higher learning in the US offered entrepreneurship courses, in 1985,
more than 200 institutions joined in the entrepreneurship marathon, and by 1992,
entrepreneurship was taught in more than 500 learning establishments in the US. Unfortunately,
no studies in the 21
st
century have documented the progress of entrepreneurship courses at
institutions of higher learning in the USA and worldwide but the founding of the Roundtable on
Entrepreneurship Education (REE) USA in 1998 by Stanford University provides a positive
indication that entrepreneurship education has permeated many business schools in the USA.
23
Following the success of REE USA in 1998, the international conference for entrepreneurship
educators was extended to other parts of the world namely REE Europe in 2001, REE Latin
America in 2003, and REE Asia in 2004. At all of these REE conferences, a strong participation
from the faculties of business and engineering belonging to leading universities was evident.
25
These experts converge to share their entrepreneurial programs’ success and failure stories and to
learn from their contemporaries ways to strengthen their entrepreneurship course offerings and
trainings.
24
As discussed in Section 3.2., the quality of entrepreneurship education is reflected in the
depth of its programs, and entrepreneurial programs can be assessed by a number of criteria such
as the number of graduate or undergraduate courses offered; the level of commitment to and
formalization of the program, the amount of institutional resources available in the form of
faculty and staff dedicated to the program, the availability of financial aid for students; and the
presence of extracurricular organizations in the form of clubs, societies, and special interest
groups supported by the program (Robinson and Haynes, 1991). Overall, evidence in the extant
literature indicates that entrepreneurship education has achieved a considerable level of depth in
its programs and has indeed met its goal of quality education and training for aspiring and
present entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, there are further opportunities for future entrepreneurship
education to expand its breadth and depth beyond existing levels.
6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Despite the intense publicity of entrepreneurship education as an agent for new venture
creation, Laukannen (2000) questioned the ethical and moral aspects associated with this
publicity. With the tremendous growth of entrepreneurship programs worldwide, individuals,
both old and young have been inspired and, to some extent, exhorted to start their own
26
businesses. People are exposed to entrepreneurship sentiments at a very young age through both
the primary and secondary school systems. Children are conditioned to think that self-
employment is the ultimate path for a successful and respectable career.
However Laukannen provided an intriguing perspective on the ethical issues involved in
the provision of entrepreneurship education. He offered an alternative view that society in
general is implicitly pressured to take the entrepreneurial plunge notwithstanding the inherent
risk and uncertainty involved. Given the extreme “pressure” these people are exposed to in lieu
of the intense interest in entrepreneurial activity, there is a possibility that they may be strongly
encouraged under the pretext of economic development. Furthermore, the teaching style of
entrepreneurship educators, which appears to be more aggressive than the usual impartial manner
of other academicians, seems unorthodox and unneeded in academia. Generally,
entrepreneurship educators have a greater expectation of their students to embark on an
entrepreneurial career upon completion of the course. Unlike graduates in science or engineering,
who may not assume roles associated with their training and education, participants of
entrepreneurship courses are expected to advance their career in self-employment activities.
Entrepreneurship education also tends to overemphasize the contribution of the individual
in the creation of new ventures, while underplaying the role of teams and existing businesses in
the spawning of new businesses. According to Laukannen (ibid.), most entrepreneurship courses
are designed to cover a wide range of business contexts and industries which might be too
generalized for the majority of students, particularly those with limited working experience to
leverage on for starting new businesses.
27
However, from a positive perspective, Dyer (1994) proposed that specialized courses and
training in entrepreneurship may enhance the individual’s confidence in starting new businesses.
Indeed, in a seminal paper, Krueger and Brazeal (1994) highlighted that entrepreneurship
education improves perceived feasibility for entrepreneurship by increasing the knowledge of
students and promoting self-efficacy among them. Walstad and Kourilsky (1998) provided
additional support that entrepreneurship education and training improved desirability for
entrepreneurship by convincing students that it is a highly regarded and socially acceptable
career in society.
7. NEW PERSPECTIVES ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
In line with the critical role entrepreneurship education serves in the venture creation
system, numerous studies have been carried out to investigate the effects of entrepreneurial
education on entrepreneurship. These investigations encompass research areas such as the
determination of the positive impact of entrepreneurship education on the decision to start a new
venture (Charney and Libecap, 2000;
25
Garnier et al., 1991
26
), the identification of a positive
relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial success (Ronstadt, 1985;
Sexton and Upton, 1987); the investigation of a positive relationship between entrepreneurship
education and economic development (McMullan and Long, 1987); and the examination of
people’s beliefs that entrepreneurship education promotes positive entrepreneurial attitudes
(Donckels, 1991; Kantor, 1988).
28
However, with the exception of a research by Lee and Wong (2003), there has been a
lack of research, if any, on the impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education (hereinafter
referred to as AEE) on entrepreneurship. Lee & Wong (ibid.) argued that it is important to
examine AEE because the application of entrepreneurship education alone to explain the
entrepreneurial phenomenon may not be sufficient. The authors explained that AEE is critical as
there can be a wide array of entrepreneurship courses and training available as part of the venture
support system, but if the target group does not perceive that entrepreneurship education will
assist them in new venture creation and/or the process of managing a venture, the existence of
entrepreneurship education might be redundant as a whole.
Despite the existence of numerous studies that examined the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and new business founding, very little is known about the effects of
attitudes towards entrepreneurship education on new venture creation. Limited studies in the past
have indicated that small business owners possess negative attitudes towards formal education
and training (Kailer, 1990), and that most small businesses are prejudiced against participating in
formal training (Stanworth and Gray, 1992). However, Marlow (1992) found that minority group
entrepreneurs and owners of small firms in the West Midlands, UK, had considerable interest in
formal training.
Although Lee and Wong (ibid.) found a positive relationship between attitudes towards
entrepreneurship education and new venture creation, they did not report the direction of causal
link between the two variables. The authors called for future research to establish the causal
relationship between AEE and new venture creation because according to them, different causal
29
links will yield different implications for academia and policy makers in their pursuit of
promoting entrepreneurship.
27
Entrepreneurship education is also conceived as an important motivating tool for special
groups such as women (Price and Monroe, 1992) minority blacks (Walstad and Kourilsky,
1998), and ecopreneurs (Anderson and Leal, 1997; Schuyler, 1998). There is a focus on
entrepreneurship education for women because they have consistently proven themselves to be a
significant driving force in the economy by establishing and expanding businesses at a
tremendous pace. The Centre for Women’s Business Research (2002) reported that one in 18
women in the U.S. is a business owner, and thus, emphasized the need to provide education and
training by extending practical and professional assistance to women in the entrepreneurial
community. With five inspiring education and support programs, i.e. the Women’s Business
Enterprise (WBE) certification from the Women’s Business Development Center (WBDC),
Women’s President Organization’s (WPO) Minnesota Chapter, Smart Growth Program,
Mentoring for Women Business Owners, and Entrepreneurship Minor courses, the Center for
Women Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship Education at the Metropolitan State University in
the U.S. is an active provider of entrepreneurship education and training for women.
28
In the case of black minorities, evidence in the literature show that the number of black-
owned firms is relatively small, accounting for 3.6% of all firms, 1% of total sales and receipts,
and generating $52,000 in sales and receipts, compared with an average of $196,000 over all
businesses. Given the relatively small size of black businesses compared to other businesses,
blacks, particularly black youth have expressed desire for more entrepreneurship courses in
30
schools to enhance their entrepreneurial potential. As Kourilsky and Walstad (ibid.) advocated,
entrepreneurship education improves the feasibility for entrepreneurship by increasing the
knowledge of students, building confidence, and promoting self-efficacy. It also develops
perceived desirability for entrepreneurship by showing students that this activity is highly
regarded and socially accepted by the community. Furthermore, Walstad and Kourilsky (ibid.)
found that black minorities have greater interest in entrepreneurship and stronger desire to learn
more about it as compared to whites.
Environmental entrepreneurs or ecopreneurs are entrepreneurs whose business focus is
driven by both profit, and concern for the environment. Ecopreneurship is an innovative, market-
based approach that identifies and exploits opportunities to improve environmental quality
(Anderson and Leal, ibid.). Given the relatively high proportion of Americans who are concerned
with the environment (three-fourths consider the environment a “high” priority and four out of
five Americans consider themselves to be environmentalists), there are ample opportunities for
ecopreneurs to make a difference in the environmental sector (Baden and Noonan, 1996). Indeed,
Samson (1994) suggested that educators in environmental and business fields should incorporate
ecopreneurial-related lessons into their courses to help entrepreneurs identify a potential business
opportunity when there is an environmental need or problem.
Notwithstanding the growing interest in entrepreneurship education for women, black
minorities, and ecopreneurs, there is a dearth of literature in these areas. It will be worthwhile for
future studies to examine the issues pertaining to entrepreneurship education for women, blacks,
31
and ecopreneurs, which will help enhance the field’s understanding of the contribution of
entrepreneurship education for these niche groups.
8. CONCLUSION
There is a continuing interest in the field of entrepreneurship education, and research in
this area has grown rapidly over the years. Despite the growth in entrepreneurship education and
training, there is little uniformity in the courses offered at all levels. Nonetheless, commentators
in the field emphasized that non-uniformity in the courses offered is not necessarily a bad
approach to program development as the key is to develop an effective mechanism that
systematically documents the effects of those courses. While the literature distinguished between
enterprise education and entrepreneurship education, there is a general agreement among
researchers that the ultimate aim of both types of education is to encourage independent business
creations. On the other hand, the literature indicates a consensus on the incompatibility of the
curriculum of a business school with that of an entrepreneurship program. Although there has
been much debate as to whether entrepreneurship can be taught, recent studies reported that both
the scientific (i.e. functional areas of business) and creative aspects of entrepreneurship can be
nurtured by entrepreneurship education. Empirical evidence indicate that entrepreneurship
education is positively related to the creative facets of entrepreneurship such as the individual’s
adeptness in creating opportunities and ability to perceive the desirability and feasibility of a
venture.
32
In terms of the teaching methods employed in entrepreneurship education and training,
the learning approach has been touted as an effective path towards developing the
entrepreneurial spirit. Entrepreneurship educators should stress in the curriculum, the importance
of hands-on, active participation within a real life entrepreneurial environment, where
constructive feedback from an expert is provided. Evidence in the extant literature suggest that
not only does entrepreneurship education positively influences individuals’ propensity towards a
more entrepreneurial stance, attitudes towards entrepreneurship education was also found to be
positively related to new venture creation. Future research should further examine the
relationship between these factors. Additionally, given the dearth of literature in the areas of
entrepreneurship education for women, black minorities, and ecopreneurs, future studies should
explore these fields of research at greater length.
The new millennium is likely to involve greater environmental uncertainty and
competition among businesses, resulting in a highly tumultuous economy that pressurizes
government policy makers to increase the current stock of businesses. J ob seekers too are not
spared from this potential change. Flexibility and innovativeness will be critical survival skills in
the highly competitive job market. Hence, it is vital that societies are encouraged to pursue
entrepreneurial careers, and what is even more crucial is for universities and institutions of
higher learning to provide courses and support to these potential entrepreneurs. Ultimately, this
translates to the need for entrepreneurship education and training to be continuously monitored
and evaluated to ensure that their objectives are met. It will be essential for evaluation studies to
measure the pre- and post- test effects of entrepreneurship courses, and incorporate longitudinal
33
research designs that use control groups to compare participants of entrepreneurship programs
with individuals who did not have entrepreneurial educational experience.
34
ENDNOTES
1
Please see Katz (2003) for a chronology of the growth of tertiary entrepreneurship education in
the U.S.
2
Entrepreneurship Awareness: General information programs on the reflection of
entrepreneurship as a career option. Business Creation: Training in technical, human, and
managerial skills to create a business. Small Business Development: Made-to-measure programs
to answer the specific needs of owners/managers who cannot afford to pay specialist. Training of
trainers: Programs to develop educators’ skills in consultation, education, and follow-up of small
businesses.
3
There are currently more than 1,500 colleges and universities in the U.S. that offer some form
of entrepreneurship training, more than 100 active university-based entrepreneurship centers, and
more than 270 endowed professorships and chairs in entrepreneurship in the U.S. with an
investment of nearly US$500 million. In addition, Robinson and Haynes (1991) reported that a
new entrepreneurship center operates with a typical budget of US$2 million.
4
The various business functions are finance, marketing, production, and human resource.
5
Some of the examples of differences between the learning focus of business schools and
entrepreneurship education are learning in the classroom vs. learning while and through doing;
evaluation through written assessment vs. evaluation by judgment of people and events through
direct feedback, success in learning measured by knowledge-based examination pass vs. success
in learning by solving problems and learning from failure; critical judgment after analysis of
large amounts of information vs. “gut feel” decision making with limited information; seeking
the correct answer with time to do it vs. developing the most appropriate solution under pressure.
35
6
Entrepreneurship consists of originating or starting a company while small business
management consists of managing an existing company.
7
“Unsupported Isolated Course” is the combination of a single course with low integration,
while “Integration Program” is a combination of multiple courses that are well integrated both
internally (with one another) and externally (with the curriculum).
8
Other combinations proposed by the framework are “Unidisciplinary Approach” (single
discipline, focusing on mature firms) and “Interdisciplinary Approach” (multiple disciplines,
focusing on start-up firms).
9
The “educators point of view” of program development is commonly found in academic
institutions like universities, while student-based perspective is generally adopted when the
priority lies in the psychosocial well-being of students.
10
Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP) plays an active role at Stanford University in
educating future scientists and engineers about high-technology entrepreneurship.
11
It is important to note that teamwork teaching is more expensive, requires higher commitment
from academicians, and it takes time for the partnership to succeed.
12
These figures are based on a study by St. Louis University.
13
These studies do not measure the pre- and post-test effects of entrepreneurship education, and
they also lack control groups. Additionally, McMullan et al. (2001) reported that the commonly
used subjective participant satisfaction measures are not correlated with objective measures of
subsequent venture performance.
14
Entrepreneurship graduates were 3 times more likely to start new businesses than general
business graduates.
36
15
McMullan and Gillin (1998) observed that 38% of the MBA Hybrid Entrepreneurship
Program graduates at University of Calgary started new businesses beyond eight months of
graduation as compared to 18% of the MBA program (no entrepreneurship courses) graduates at
Australian University.
16
Clouse (1990) highlighted that an introductory entrepreneurship course has a statistically
significant impact on students’ simulated new venture decision behavior. About 75% of the
participants developed positive decision behavior at the end of the semester as compared to at the
inception of the course.
17
Out of the 228 participants surveyed in the Quebec “Become an Entrepreneur” course, Garnier
and Gasse (1990) found that 14% set up a business within 18 months after completing the
entrepreneurship course and 51% actively pursued an entrepreneurial idea.
18
Garnier et al. (1991) assessed that a year after attending a televised course in entrepreneurship,
12% of participants had launched a venture, 12% had developed the firm they owned before the
course, and 44% had actively pursued their intentions to go into business.
19
According to Price and Monroe (1992), entrepreneurs of the Fast Trac training program
significantly increased their full-time employees and annual sales by 27% and 33% respectively.
20
Carrier (1999) reported that 80% of the entrepreneurs surveyed believed that training in export
financing will assist them in their businesses, while more than half perceived that knowledge
about the legal aspects of international trade will improve their export potential.
21
For example, the Annual Conference organized by the Academy of Management (AOM) -
Entrepreneurship Division attracts researchers and practitioners from both the U.S and
worldwide. As of May 2005, there are 1,777 members in the Entrepreneurship Division,
37
comprising of 1,194 domestic (U.S) and 583 international members. Out of the 1,777 members,
1,176 are academics, 19 are emeritus, 125 are executives and 457 are students.
22
International J ournal of Entrepreneurship Education (IJ EE), an online journal dedicated to the
publication of research papers and case studies on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship
education was introduced in 2002.
23
For a complete information on the Roundtable for Entrepreneurship Education, please visit the
websitehttp://ree.stanford.edu.
24
REE USA conference in 2002 attracted over 75 members from 40 different universities
25
Please refer to Endnote 14.
26
Please refer to Endnote 18.
27
If further research indicates that positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship education do
influence start-up activities, policy makers at both the government and academic levels should
invest their efforts in changing the attitudes and mindsets of their target group and develop
incentives for people to be genuinely interested and willing to commit their time to
entrepreneurship education. The emphasis of entrepreneurship will shift from merely providing
entrepreneurship courses and training to changing attitudes of would-be entrepreneurs. If
business start-ups influence attitudes towards entrepreneurship education, business schools and
colleges should target these groups of entrepreneurs who are interested in gathering knowledge
and skills from entrepreneurship education and are willing to sacrifice their time, money and
effort. While these people may have been successful in establishing businesses, the real pay-off
concerns whether or not these businesses are successful in maintaining their position and growth
in the existing market. Therefore, entrepreneurship education is still very much relevant to these
entrepreneurs as the benefits of entrepreneurship education go beyond the start-up stage.
38
28
Please visithttp://www.metrostate.edu/com/cwe/education.html for further information on
these programs.
39
References
Acs, Z., Carlsson, B., and Karlsson, C., 1999, Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium
Enterprises and the Macro-economy. Cambridge University Press, London.
Anderson, T.L., and Leal, D.R, 1997, Enviro-capitalists: Doing good while doing well. Lanham:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Baden, J .A., and Nooman, D.S., 1996, The evolving environmentalism.http://www.free-
eco.org/free/pubs/DD.EE.html.
Béchard, J .P. and Toulouse, J .M., 1998, Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of
training objectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 317-332.
Birley, S., 1984, Education for Entrepreneurs: A UK/USA Comparative Study. Paper presented
at the Small Business Institute Directors Association, Denver, Colorado.
Block, Z. and Stumpf, A.A., 1992, Entrepreneurship Education Research: Experience and
Challenge, in Sexton, D.L. and Kasarada, J .D. (eds), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship,
PWS-Kent Publishing Company, USA: 17-42.
Brockhaus, R.H., 1991, Entrepreneurship Education and Research Outside North America.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3): 77-84.
40
Brown, L.E., Christy, R.L. and Banowetz, A.F., 1987, Perceptions of Success in Business Start-
up and the Impact of Entrepreneurial Education. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Babson College: Wellesley, MA: 660-661.
Brush, C., 1992, Research on women business owners: Past trends, new perspective and future
directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(4): 5-30.
Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I.M., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J .A., Hitt, M.H., Alvarez, S.A.,
Meyer, G.D. and Venkataraman, S., 2003, Doctoral Education in the Field of
Entreprneuership. Journal of Management 29(3): 309-331.
Bruyat, C. and J ulien, P.A., 2000, Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing 16(2): 165-180.
Carrier, C., 1999, The training and development needs of owner-manager of small businesses
with export potential. Journal of Small Business Management 37(4): 30-41.
Carsrud, A.L., 1991, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Formation: A Brief Perspective on the
Infrastructure in Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3): 69-75.
Center for Women’s Business Research, 2002,http://www.nfwbo.org/index.asp.
41
Chamard, J ., 1989, Public Education: Its Effect on Entrepreneurial Characteristics. Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship 6(2): 23-30.
Charney, A. and Libecap, G.D., (2000), Impact of Entrepreneurship Education. Insights. A
Kauffman Research Series. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Learning.
Clouse, Van. G.H., 1990, A Controlled Experiment Relating Entrepreneurial Education to
Students’ Start-Up Decisions. Journal of Small Business Management 28(2): 45-54.
Collins, O.F., Moore, D.G. and Umwalla, D.B., 1964, The Enterprising Man. East Lansing, MI:
MSU Business Studies, Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
Cox, L.W., Mueller, S.L., Moss, S.E., 2002/2003, The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(2).
Curran, J . and Stanworth, J ., 1989, Education and Training for Enterprise: Some problems of
classification, evaluation, policy and research. International Small Business Journal 7(2).
Curran, J . and Storey. D.J ., 2002, Small business policy in the United Kingdom: the inheritance
of the small business service and implications for its future effectiveness. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 20:163-177.
42
Dana, L.P., 1992, Entrepreneurial Education in Europe. Journal of Education for Business 68(2):
74-78.
Dana, L.P., 2001, The Education and Training of Entrepreneurs in Asia. Education & Training
43(8/9).
Donckels, R., 1991, Education and Entrepreneurship Experience from Secondary and University
Education in Belgium. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise 9(1): 35-42.
Dyer, W.G. J r., 1994, Towards a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Winter 19(2): 7-21.
Evans, D.S. and Leighton, L., 1990, Small Business Formation by Unemployed and Employed
workers. Small Business Economics, 2(4): 319-320
Filion, L.J ., 1994, Ten Steps to Entrepreneurial Teaching. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship 5(1): 27-31.
Galloway, L. and Brown, W., 2002, Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the
creation of high growth firms? Education + Training 44(8/9): 398-405.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B., 1994, Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes:
A Review and Evaluation-Part 2. Journal of European Industrial Training 18(11): 13-21.
43
Garnier, B. and Gasse, Y., 1990, Training Entrepreneurs Through Newspapers. Journal of Small
Business Management 28(1): 70-73.
Garnier, B., Gasse, Y., and Raynal, C., 1991, Evaluation of a Televised Course in
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 9(1): 25-34.
Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H., 1994, Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education: Successes
and Failures. Journal of Business Venturing 9: 179-187.
Gasse, Y., 1985, A Strategy for the Promotion and Identification of Potential Entrepereneurs at
the Secondary School Level. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College:
Wellesley, MA: 538-559.
Gibb, A. A., 1993, The Enterprise Culture and Education. Understanding Enterprise Education
and its Links with Small Business Entrepreneurships and Wider Educational Goals.
International Small Business Management Journal 11(3).
Gibb, A.A., 1996, Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect
them in the 21
st
century business school? British Journal of Management 7: 309-321.
Gibb, Y.K. and Nelson, E.G., 1996, Personal Competences, Training and Assessment: A
Challenge for Small Business Trainers. Proceedings of the European Small Business Seminar:
97-107.
44
Gnyawali, D.R. and Fogel, D.S., 1994, Environments for entrepreneurship development:
dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer: 43-
62.
Gorman, G. and Hanlon, D., 1997, Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education,
Enterprise Education and Education For Small Business Management: A Ten–Year Literature
Review. International Small Business Journal 15(3): 56-78.
Hansemark, O.C., 1998, The Effects of an Entrepreneurship Programme on Need for
Achievement and Locus of Control of Reinforcement. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 4(1): 28.
Hansemark, O.C., 2003, Need for Achievement, Locus of Control, and the Prediction of
Business Start-Ups: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Economic Psychology 24(3): 301.
Hills, G.E., 1988, Variations in University Entrepreneurship Education: An Empirical Study of
an Evolving Field. Journal of Business Venturing 3: 109-122.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., Sexton, D.L., 2001, Guest editors’ introduction to the
special issue: Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation.
Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 479.
45
Hult, G.T.M., Snow, C.C., and Kandemir, D., 2003, The role of entrepreneurship in building
cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. Journal of Management 29(3): 401.
Hynes, B., 1996, Entrepreneurship Education and training – introducing entrepreneurship into
non-business disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Training 20(8): 10-17.
Interman, 1992, International Management Development Network in Cooperation with the
United Nations Development Program (UDP) and the International Labor Office (ILO).
Networking for Entrepreneurship Development, Geneva: International Labor Office.
J ack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R., 1998, Entrepreneurship Education within the Condition of
Entreprenology, Proceedings of the Conference on Enterprise and Learning, Aberdeen.
J amieson, I., 1984, Schools and enterprise, in Watts, A.G. and Moran, P. (Eds). Education for
Enterprise, CRAC, Ballinger, Cambridge: 19-27.
J ennings, D.F. and Zeithamil, C.P., 1983, Locus of Control: A Review and Directions for
Entrepreneurial Research. Proceedings of the Academy of Management: 417-421.
J ohannisson, B., 1991, University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 3(1): 67-82.
46
Kailer, N., 1990, Further Training in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Austria). Journal of
Small Business Management 28(1): 60-63.
Kantor, J ., 1988, Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? A Canadian Experiment. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise 5(4): 12-19.
Kao, R.W.Y., 1994, From General Management to Entrepreneurship: The Business (B) School
Challenge. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 11(2): 4-10.
Katz, J .A., 1991, Endowed positions: Entrepreneurship and related fields. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 15 (3): 53-67.
Katz, J .A., 2003, The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing 18(2): 283-300.
Knight, R.M., 1987, Can Business Schools Produce Entrepreneurs? An empirical Study.
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College: Wellesley, MA: 603-604.
Koch, L.T., 2002/2003, Theory and Practice of Entrepreneurship Education: a German View.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(4).
Kolb, D., Rabin, M. and McIntyre, J .M., 1974, Organisational Philosophy: An Experiential
Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J .
47
Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B., 1998, Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge,
attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing 13(1):
77-88.
Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B., 2002, The Early Environment and Schooling Experience of
High-Tech Entrepreneurs: Insights for Entrepreneurship Education. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 1-20.
Krueger, N., 1993, The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(1): 5-21.
Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D.V., 1994, Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(3): 91-104.
Krueger, N.F. and Dickson, P.R., 1994, How believing in ourselves increases risk taking:
perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Science, 25: 385-400.
Laukkanen, M., 2000, Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micro-mechanism for endogenous regional growth. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 12: 25-47.
Lee, L. and Wong, P.K., 2003, Attitude towards Entrepreneurship Education and New Venture
Creation. Journal of Enterprising Culture 11(4): 339-357.
48
Maillat, D., 1998, Innovative milieux and new generation of regional policies. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development 10: 1-16.
Marlow. S., 1992, The Take-up of Business Growth Training Schemes by Ethnic Minority-
owned Small Firms in Britain. International Small Business Journal 10(4): 34-46.
McCarthy, A., Morris, P.J ., and Winn, J ., 1997, A New Look At Undergraduate
Entrepreneurship Education. Proceedings of USABE Annual National Conference
Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Global Economic Development. San Francisco, California.
McClelland, D.C., 1961, The Achieving Society. Princeton, N.J : Van Nostrand.
McMullan, W.Ed. and Boberg, A.L., 1991, The Relative Effectiveness of Projects in Teaching
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 9(9): 14-24.
McMullan, W.Ed., Chrisman, J .J ., and Vesper, K., 2001, Some Problems in Using Subjective
Measures of Effectiveness to Evaluate Entrepreneurial Assistance Programs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26(1): 37-54.
McMullan, W. Ed. and Gillin, L.M., 1998, Industrial Viewpoint - Entrepreneurship Education.
Technovation 18(4): 275-286.
49
McMullan, W.Ed. and Long, W.A., 1987, Entrepreneurship Education in The Nineties. Journal
of Business Venturing 2: 261-275.
McMullan, W.Ed., Long, W.A. and Graham, J .B., 1986, Assessing Economic Value Added by
University-Based New-Venture Outreach Programs. Journal of Business Venturing 1: 225-
240.
McMullan, W.Ed., Long, W.A. and Wilson, A., 1985, MBA Concentration on Entrepreneurship.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 3(1): 18-22.
Parker, S.C., 2005, Learning about the unknown: How fast do entrepreneurs adjust their beliefs?
Forthcoming in Journal of Business Venturing.
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J ., 2003, Enterprise education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(2): 129-144.
Plaschka, G. R. and Welsch, H. P., 1990, Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education:
Curricular designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14(3): 55-70.
Preshing, W.A., 1991, Education by Projects. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
9(1): 55-59.
50
Price, C. and Monroe, S., 1992, Educational Training for Women and Minority Entrepreneurs
Positively Impacts Venture Growth. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College: Wellesley, MA: 216-230.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M., 2001, Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial
learning. Journal of Small business and Enterprise Development 8(2): 150-158.
Robinson, P. and Haynes. M., 1991, Entrepreneurship Education in America’s Major
Universities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3): 41-52.
Ronstadt, R., 1985, Training Potential Entrepreneurs. In Entrepreneurship: What it is and How
to Teach It, edited by J . J . Kao and H.S. Stevenson. Boston, MSS: Harvard Business School.
Rosa, P., Scott, M.G. and Klandt. H., 1996, Educating Entrepreneurs in Modernising Economies
(Ipswich: Avebury).
Saee, J ., 1996, A Critical Evaluation of Australian Entrepreneurship Education and Training.
Proceedings of the Internationalising Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference,
Arnhem.
Saks, N.T. and Gaglio, C.M., 2002, Can Opportunity Identification Be Taught? Journal of
Enterprising Culture 10(4): 313-347.
51
Samson, K.J ., 1994, Teaching environmental entrepreneurship. In Business 16(6): 32-34.
Sandberg, W.R. and Gatewood, E.J ., 1991, A profile of entrepreneurship research center:
Orientations, interests, activities, and resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3):
11-24.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B., 1984, Entrepreneurship Education Suggestions for Increasing
Effectiveness. Journal of Small Business Management 22(2).
Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J .D., 1992, The State of the Art of Entrepreneurships. P.W. Kent
Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
Sexton, D.L. and Upton, N., 1987, Evaluation of an Innovative Approach to Teaching
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 25(1): 35-43.
Shepherd. D.A. and Douglas, E.J ., 1997, Is Management Education Developing or Killing the
Entrepreneurial Spirit? Proceedings of the 1997 USASBE Annual National Conference
Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Global Economic Development, San Francisco, California.
Singh, J .B., 1990, Entrepreneurship Education as a Catalyst of Development in the Third World.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 7(4): 56-63.
52
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S, and Tarabishy, A., 2002, The State of Entrepreneurship Education in
the United States: A Nationwide Survey and Analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 1-22.
Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W., 1991, Trends in Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship Education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
15(3): 25-39.
Stanworth, J . and Gray, C., 1992, Entrepreneurship and Education: Action-based: Research with
Training Policy Implications in Britain. International Small Business Journal 10(2): 11-23.
Sternberg, R. and Wennekers, S., 2005, Determinants and Effects of New Business Creation:
Using Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data. Small Business Economics 24(3): 193.
Streeter, D.H., J aquette J r., J .P. and Hovis, K., 2002, University-wide Entrepreneurship and
Education: Alternative Models and Current Trends. Cornell University Working Paper 2002-
02.
Stumpf, S.S., Dunbar, R.L. and Mullen, T.P., 1991, Simulations in Entrepreneurial Education:
Oxymoron or Untapped Opportunity? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College: Wellesley, MA: 681-694.
53
Vesper, K.H., 1971, Venture initiation courses in U.S business schools. Academy of Management
Journal 6: 14-19.
Vesper, K.H., 1985, New Developments in entrepreneurship education. J .A. Hornaday et al.,
eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson College: 489-497.
Walstad, W.B. and Kourilsky, M.L, 1998, Entrepreneurial attitudes and knowledge of black
youth. Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice 23(2): 5-18.
Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P., and Autio, E., 2005, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth:
Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics 24(3): 335.
Zeithamil, C.P. and Rice, G.H., 1987, Entrepreneurship/Small Business Education in American
Universities. Journal of Small Business Management 25(1): 44-50.
doc_976076311.pdf
In such a detailed criteria examines entrepreneurship education a compendium of related issues.
Reference No.: WP2005-14
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre
Working Papers
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION - A COMPENDIUM OF RELATED ISSUES
July 2005
Lena Lee
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre
National University of Singapore
14 Prince George’s Park
Singapore 118413
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 65- 68745964
Fax: 65-67732269
Poh-Kam Wong
NUS Entrepreneurship Centre
National University of Singapore
Copyright ©2005, NUS Entrepreneurship Centre, NUS. All rights reserved.
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Current years have witnessed the ongoing interest in entrepreneurship, which is
essentially understood as the emergence and growth of new businesses (Rosa et al., 1996). A
wide range of factors have contributed to the revival of interest in entrepreneurship in USA,
Europe and many other countries. In recent years, many industrialized countries have suffered
from economic recessions and high unemployment rates. Given the prevailing economic
conditions, policy makers worldwide have now begun to recognize the instrumental role of
entrepreneurship for economic growth. New and growing businesses are seen as a solution to
rising unemployment rates, and as a major catalyst to national economic prosperity (Acs et al.,
1999; Bruyat and J ulien, 2000).
As a result of the proliferating emphasis worldwide on entrepreneurship as the catalyst
for economic development and job creation, policy makers have developed a wide array of
measures to support entrepreneurship (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994; Maillat, 1998). Key among
these is the call for academic institutions, such as universities, to contribute through appropriate
educational programs, i.e. entrepreneurship education (Laukkanen, 2000). There appears to be a
consensus that entrepreneurship education and training has a major role to play in the economic
development of a country (Gibb, 1996). The nature, relevance and appropriateness of
entrepreneurship education have been subject to increasing scrutiny since the late 1960s (Vesper,
1985) and it has been touted as an effective means of entrepreneurial learning (J ohannisson,
1991). Indeed, entrepreneurship education has become an obvious complement to venture
3
capital and incubators as tools in propelling economic advancement (McMullan and Long,
1987).
Whilst there clearly is a rise in entrepreneurial spirit and hence, an increase in
entrepreneurship education across nations worldwide
1
, information supporting these assertions
and descriptions of the roles of entrepreneurship education to educate and inspire individuals
remain largely scattered and sporadic. This chapter aims to consolidate and synthesize the issues
surrounding university entrepreneurship education such as whether or not entrepreneurship can
be taught, the structure, effectiveness, and potential growth of entrepreneurship courses, ethical
issues as well as new perspectives on entrepreneurship education.
2. ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION – AN OVERVIEW
Interest in entrepreneurship education grew rapidly in the late 1950s and early 1960s
when some of the most well-known studies in entrepreneurship like McClelland’s The Achieving
Society (1961) and Collins, Moore, and Umwalla’s The Enterprising Man (1964) were
published. Over the years, entrepreneurship education has climbed the ranks in the business
domain and was positioned sixth in importance out of the 60 recommendations on the solutions
to the major problems facing small businesses presented at the White House Conference on
Small Business (Solomon and Fernald, 1991).
There are various definitive labels used to explain entrepreneurship education. The term
“entrepreneurship education” is commonly used in the USA and Canada but less commonly
4
applied in Europe in the early 1980s (Gibb, 1993). The preferred term within the UK and Irish
contexts was “enterprise education” but by the early 1990s, the concept of “enterprise” gradually
converged to “entrepreneurship” (Gibb, ibid.). Essentially, Gibb made a clear distinction
between “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” education with the former focusing on the
advancement of personal enterprising attributes and attitudes that prepare the individual for self-
employment, while the latter relates to the development of functional management skills and
abilities that train the individual to start, manage, and develop a business (Gibb and Nelson, 1996
p.98). Despite this distinction, the ultimate aim of both enterprise and entrepreneurship education
is to encourage independent business creation.
2.1 The dichotomy of entrepreneurship: Nature vs. Nurture
In the midst of continuous growth in the number of universities offering entrepreneurship
courses, opinions abound on the issue of whether entrepreneurship can be taught and anecdotes
about whether entrepreneurs are born or bred fill discussions in international journals and
conferences. Commentators such as Rae and Carswell (2001) and Shepherd and Douglas (1997)
argued that there is a distinction between the teachable and the non teachable elements of
entrepreneurship. The key to a successful entrepreneurship education is to find the most effective
way to manage the teachable skills and identify the best match between student needs and
teaching techniques (Katz, 1991). This concurs with the findings of an earlier study conducted by
Vesper (1971) who highlighted that the debate concerns not how entrepreneurship can be taught
but how it can best be taught.
5
As discussed by J ack and Anderson (1998), the teaching of entrepreneurship is both a
“science” and “art” where the former relates to the functional skills required for business start-up
(an area which appears to be teachable) while the latter refers to the creative aspects of
entrepreneurship, which are not explicitly teachable. There is a unanimous agreement among
entrepreneurship educators that there needs to be a shift of emphasis on the “scientific” to the
“artistic” and creative teaching of entrepreneurship (Shepherd and Douglas, 1997). Although the
focus of most entrepreneurship courses and training lies in the “scientific” dimension of
entrepreneurship, it has been acknowledged that entrepreneurship education helps ignites the
artistic, creative, and perceptual aspects of entrepreneurship (Shepherd and Douglas, ibid.).
Indeed, recent evidence in the literature indicates that entrepreneurship education has a
positive impact on perceptual factors such as self-efficacy (Cox et al., 2002/2003). The authors
compared students who had not begun an entrepreneurship course (pre-course group) with those
who had completed the course (post-course group), and found that the post-course group had
significantly higher self-efficacy than the pre-course group. Similarly, in a pre-test/post-test
study, Peterman and Kennedy (2003) observed that participants reported significantly higher
perceptions of both desirability and feasibility after completing the Young Achievement
Australia (YAA) entrepreneurship program.
From a different perspective, (Dana, 2001) posited that the question of whether
entrepreneurship can be taught depends on the fundamental definition of entrepreneurship. He
discussed both the Schumpeterian and Austrian definitions of entrepreneurship and argued that it
is possible to train potential entrepreneurs to identify opportunities but difficult to teach them the
6
art of creating opportunities. Fundamentally, Dana argued that Kirznerian entrepreneurship
(opportunity identification) is teachable but not Schumpeterian entrepreneurship (opportunity
creation). Further, Saks and Gaglio (2002) added that while it is possible to teach participants of
entrepreneurship programs to evaluate opportunities, the innate ability to recognize opportunities
remains virtually non-teachable. As Saee (1996) asserted, entrepreneurship education can only
demonstrate the process involved in being successful, but cannot create an entrepreneur as the
individual is ultimately responsible for his/her own success.
Collectively, evidence in the existing literature delineates that only specific aspects of
entrepreneurship are explicitly teachable, and it may be necessary to teach people how to be
entrepreneurs (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994). As Professor Howard Stevenson of Harvard
University eloquently put it: “You cannot teach someone to become a Bill Gates, (neither can
you) teach someone to compose like Beethoven. But you can teach someone the notes and
scales, give them the tools they need to become a composer. And you can teach the tools people
need to be entrepreneurs”. Therefore, the issues surrounding the provision of entrepreneurship
education merits further attention, and are explored further in the ensuing sections.
3. STRUCTURE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP COURSES
3.1 Objectives of entrepreneurship education
Generally, entrepreneurship education aims to increase the awareness of entrepreneurship
as a career option, and enhance the understanding of the process involved in initiating and
7
managing a new business enterprise (Hills, 1988; Donckels, 1991). Following Interman’s (1992)
detailed typology of entrepreneurship, there are four objectives of entrepreneurship programs:
entrepreneurship awareness, business creation, small business development, and training of
trainers.
2
Similarly, J amieson (1984) suggested that entrepreneurship education provides three
different classes of training: education “about” enterprise (i.e. entrepreneurship awareness),
education “for” enterprise (i.e. preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for business creation), and
education “in” enterprise (i.e. training for the growth and development of established
entrepreneurs). A recent study by Parker (2005) stressed the importance of education and
training for existing entrepreneurs as it was found that entrepreneurs learned rather slowly and
they tend to rely disproportionately on prior beliefs and past experiences.
In contrast, commentators such as J ohannisson (1991) posited that entrepreneurship
education has five learning objectives in that participants of entrepreneurship programs will
develop the know why (developing the right attitudes and motivation for start-up); know how
(acquiring the technical abilities and skills needed to develop a business); know who (fostering
networks and contacts for entrepreneurial ventures); know when (achieving the sharp intuition to
act at the correct moment); and know what (attaining the knowledge base and information for
new venture development) aspects of entrepreneurial learning.
In a broader context, the four main objectives of entrepreneurship education appear to be
i) prepare participants for career success ii) increase their capacity for future learning iii) realize
participants’ personal fulfillment and iv) contribute to society (Sexton and Kasarda, 1992).
Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994) extended this characterization by advancing that the goal of
8
entrepreneurship is to effectively foster all these objectives for the creation of new businesses.
Given the high investment of resources in entrepreneurship education,
3
a general consensus
emerges in the literature that the primary aim of these programs is the promotion of the
successful formation of new ventures (Curran and Stanworth, 1989). Supporting this assertion,
McMullan and Long (1987) argued that unlike other university degrees, the success of
entrepreneurship programs cannot be evaluated by the number of students graduated but more
appropriately measured by the socioeconomic impact they produce in the businesses they create.
Issues such as the number of companies created, the number of jobs created, the types of
companies formed, and the growth potential of the companies are essential for economic growth
(Sternberg and Wennekers, 2005; Wong et al., 2005).
The view that entrepreneurship education and hence, entrepreneurship courses need to be
differentiated by stages of venture development rather than by functional expertise has been
acknowledged for some time (McMullan and Long, ibid.).
4
Specifically, the implications that
learning needs of individuals vary according to the stages of development such as awareness,
pre-start-up, start-up, growth, and maturity. According to McMullan and Long, the typical skill
required at a particular stage is as follows: opportunity identification at the awareness stage,
market feasibility at pre-start-up and new venture planning during start-up.
Although there are no definitive objectives of entrepreneurship education, the aims of
such programs and trainings are probably best summarized as i) identifying and preparing
potential entrepreneurs for start-ups ii) enabling participants to prepare business plans for new
venture iii) focusing on issues that are critical to the implementation of entrepreneurial projects
9
such as market research, business financing and legal issues and iv) enabling the development of
autonomous and risk-taking behavior (Garavan and O’Cinneide, ibid.).
3.2 Contents of entrepreneurship education
The philosophical underpinning of entrepreneurship courses is that the participants of
these courses can influence the external environment and that they are not bounded by the
intricacies in the environment. This philosophical perspective is closely related to the locus of
control theory that elucidates the positive relationship between internal locus of control and
entrepreneurial start-ups (Hansemark, 2003). Studies by Hansemark (1998) and J ennings and
Zeithamil (1983) reported that participation in an entrepreneurship program increases internal
locus of control. It is expected that individuals are able to apply the skills and knowledge that
they have acquired through entrepreneurship education and training to venture-related decision
making. Some of the typical skills required for start-ups are knowledge on how to raise finance,
the legal and tax framework, marketing, and recruitment (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994),
resulting in the development of more practical-based entrepreneurship programs at the expense
of conceptual development (Sexton and Bowman, 1984).
In response to entrepreneurs’ demands for entrepreneurship education, a new age of
learning that consists of outreach programs is offered to existing entrepreneurs instead of the
usual pool of students (McMullan et al., 1986). Basically, the common elements in an
entrepreneurship course include lectures, venture plan writing, entrepreneurial speakers, business
cases, and more recently, the use of live video of entrepreneurs featured in cases (Gartner and
10
Vesper, 1994). In an attempt to advocate a framework and methodology for entrepreneurship
education, Knight (1987) suggested that the following elements be included in entrepreneurship
programs: opportunity identification, strategy development, resource acquisition, and
implementation.
Supporting McMullan and Long’s (1987) proposition that entrepreneurship education
should be structured based on the different skills needed at various stages of the firm’s
development, Gartner and Vesper (ibid.) augmented that the skills and knowledge required to
understand business entry (entrepreneurship) differ from the skills and knowledge required to
comprehend the operations of an ongoing business (business management). In one of his earlier
research, Gibb (1993) distinguished the learning focus of business school from entrepreneurship
education. He argued that some entrepreneurship programs employ the curriculum of business
schools that is not compatible in an entrepreneurial situation.
5
The values and abilities emphasized by business schools may actually inhibit
entrepreneurial spirit. As noted by Kao (1994), the management model of teaching does not
apply to entrepreneurship; hence, distinctive curricula and training programs are needed for
entrepreneurship education. However, Zeithaml and Rice (1987) cautioned that although
education for entrepreneurship and education for small business management are not the same
thing, the two terms are so closely associated that it is almost impossible to study one without
considering the other.
6
Entrepreneurship courses stress the equivocal elements of start-ups such
as the development of new organizations, new products, and new markets while business
management courses emphasize the knowledge and skills required for business practices.
11
In terms of the division between undergraduate and graduate courses in entrepreneurship,
more courses are offered at the undergraduate level in universities (Gartner and Vesper, ibid.).
Brush et al. (2003) in their research on entrepreneurship education at different levels found that
deans of business schools were increasingly placing more importance on entrepreneurship at the
undergraduate than at the graduate levels. From the contents aspect, Zeithaml and Rice’s (ibid.)
survey of schools of varying sizes and their offerings of entrepreneurship courses at the graduate
and undergraduate levels suggested that the structure of entrepreneurship education programs are
quite similar throughout the United States at both levels (i.e. each school offers one general
course usually aimed at the development of a new business, followed by consulting experience
with a small business that is facing difficulties). In terms of duration, most of these
entrepreneurship programs last as short as a few days (Curran and Stanworth, 1989), while others
range from 25 days to 12 months (Garavan and O’Cinneide, ibid.).
In their interesting 1991 paper, Robinson and Haynes (1991) introduced the terms
“depth” and “breadth” of entrepreneurship education programs. Depth relates to the quality of
program, while breadth refers to the number of entrepreneurship programs available. The authors
proposed that the higher the quality of the program, the greater the commitment to, and
formalization of academic programs, the more will be the institutional resources committed, the
higher will be the financial aid, and the greater will be the number of extracurricular
organizations (clubs, societies) available. In their survey of 215 colleges/universities, Robinson
and Haynes reported that 81.5% of the schools they studied had at least one undergraduate
course and 54.2% offered one graduate course. Additionally, 61.1% of the universities had a
formal organization e.g. centers/ departments established for entrepreneurship education.
12
The challenge for entrepreneurship educators is to enhance the quality of existing
programs in existing institutions, i.e. improving the depth of the field, and not merely extending
existing entrepreneurship courses and programs to other institutions, i.e. developing the breadth
of the field (Robinson and Haynes, ibid.). However, the major stumbling block for such
development has been the lack of solid theoretical bases upon which pedagogical models and
methods are built. Thus, the authors affirmed the need for institutions of higher learning to
develop graduate doctoral programs that prepare future faculty in entrepreneurship education.
Plaschka and Welsch (1990) found some commentators in the field who believe that it is
possible to map out a framework of entrepreneurship program that aims at developing a
competent curriculum for entrepreneurship education. With this objective in mind, Plaschka and
Welsch proposed two frameworks. The first framework consists of two dimensions, number of
entrepreneurship courses that are offered and degree of integration. Number of courses range
from a single course to multiple courses, while degree of integration represents the level of
acceptance and support from a variety of different groups. Support can be sought from intra-
university groups such as other faculty members, inter-university groups such as alumni and
entrepreneurs and complementary entrepreneurship activities such as entrepreneurship clubs or
organizations. This framework is a matrix that extends from “unsupported isolated course” to
“integrated program”.
7
When more and more courses are offered to participants, the ideal path
will be for education providers to adopt the “integrated program” strategy where multiple
courses are integrated both with one another and with the curriculum.
13
The second framework is based on two paths: transition stages and functional fields. The
transition stages are inception, survival, growth, expansion, and maturity, while functional fields
refer to the different disciplines of the entrepreneurship curriculum such as marketing,
management, and finance. Entrepreneurship educators could conduct courses within a single
discipline like marketing, focusing on start-ups (“Unidisciplinary Approach”) or introduce
multiple disciplines in the entrepreneurship curriculum, focusing on mature firms
(“Interdisciplinary Program”).
8
This framework suggests that there is no best strategy for
curriculum development as the choice of design depends on the stage of the firm’s development
and the focus of the curriculum (unidiscipline vs. multi-discipline).
In a recent study, Béchard and Toulouse (1998) provided a comprehensive review of how
entrepreneurship programs are developed. Based on their report, they proposed that the contents
of entrepreneurship programs can be planned from four perspectives. First, program contents can
be developed from the perspective of the educators, where the curriculum is defined based on the
expertise of the educators. Second, entrepreneurship program can be established based on the
students’ needs and requirements. This approach takes into account the learning requirements of
each individual. Third, the entrepreneurship syllabus can be analyzed from the viewpoint of
those who design them. This view considers the key learning/teaching objectives as the anchor of
entrepreneurship curriculum. Fourth, the evaluators of the programs themselves can influence the
curriculum. This approach allows evaluators to make adjustments to the program contents
according to the pre-set criteria for program quality and effectiveness. Depending on the host
institution and level of priority, there is no one best perspective for program development.
9
14
From the review presented, it is evident that despite the increase in entrepreneurship
programs, there is still no generally accepted curriculum for aspiring entrepreneurs to follow
(Plaschka and Welsch, ibid,; Koch, 2002/2003). Many programs evolve on a trial and error basis,
depending on the types of entrepreneurial projects undertaken and on the feedback of students
who have enrolled on the courses. However, the authors cautioned that these are not necessarily
poor approaches to program development as long as there is a mechanism that systematically
documents the feedback. Moreover, given the changing nature and relatively young discipline of
entrepreneurship, Saks and Gaglio (2002) noted that it will be impossible to find unanimous
agreement on the teaching content of entrepreneurship education.
3.3 Approaches to entrepreneurship education
The considerable variety of entrepreneurial programs offered in the market is also found
in the variety of learning methods employed in entrepreneurship education and training. From a
broad perspective, the approaches to entrepreneurship education can be classified into four
categories: the “old war stories” approach, the “case study” approach, the “planning” approach,
and the “generic action” approach (Shepherd and Douglas, 1997). Each of these approaches
differs from each other in terms of its focus and purpose. The “old war stories” approach
attempts to motivate aspiring entrepreneurs by relaying a series of successful entrepreneurship
stories and revealing how those individuals became successful entrepreneurs. The “case study”
approach uses cases of existing companies to analyze the mechanics of the entrepreneurial
process and to elicit students’ proposed solutions to the companies’ problems. The “planning”
approach usually takes the form of a business plan that consists of detailed objectives, budgets,
15
and programs, while the “generic action” approach emphasizes the formulation of optimal
entrepreneurial actions based on existing market forces.
On the other hand, from a micro perspective, the study by Solomon et al. (2002)
highlighted that the most popular teaching methods in entrepreneurship education are creation of
business plans, case studies, and lectures. Some commentators, like McMullan and Long (1987),
are of the opinion that entrepreneurship education should be creatively grounded and that
students should be exposed to problem solving and taught strategies to deal with ambiguous and
complex situations. Apart from this, students should also be exposed to substantial hands-on
working experience with community ventures. Stumpf et al. (1991) supported this view when
they highlighted the applicability of behavioral simulations in entrepreneurship programs. Hills
(1988), in his survey of fifteen leading educators in the field, found that courses had been created
around the production of business plans with an emphasis on market feasibility analysis.
Additionally, he reported that educators preferred to develop courses around business life cycles
i.e. start-up, growing firms, and established firms. In other studies, McMullan and Boberg (1991)
and Preshing (1991) observed that students generally favored the project method as compared to
the case method of teaching entrepreneurship.
Further to the recommendation of approaches in entrepreneurship education, Carsrud
(1991) postulated that apart from full-time academia, other components of the entrepreneurship
infrastructure such as endowed faculty, research centers, professional organizations, journals,
and the mass media provided significant support for entrepreneurship education. Sandberg and
Gatewood (1991) highlighted the pivotal role of entrepreneurship centers as the intermediary
16
between faculty and business community. In essence, the agendas and constituency orientations
of entrepreneurship centers facilitated the teaching of entrepreneurship by bridging the gap
between business schools and the community.
Thus, while there is a substantial array of teaching methods employed in entrepreneurship
education, there is little intellectual cohesion among these efforts, and the literature seems to
indicate that there is no one best pedagogical approach for teaching entrepreneurship (Garavan
and O’Cinneide, 1994; Kolb et al. 1974). Nevertheless, the “learning” approach proposed by
Shepherd and Douglas (ibid.) has been touted as an effective path towards developing the
entrepreneurial spirit. This approach requires the shift in emphasis from teaching to learning and
it recognizes the importance of learning through hands-on and active participation in a real life
entrepreneurial environment where constructive feedback from an expert is provided.
3.4 Profile of participants of entrepreneurship education
There is great diversity among the participants of entrepreneurship programs and various
categories have been proposed in the literature. Generally, a high percentage of students are
practitioners who choose to embark on an entrepreneurial program to acquire new knowledge
and skills which they can assimilate into their businesses (McMullan & Long, 1987). Garavan
and O’Cinneide (1994) identified three categories of participants: first, participants who had no
project idea for starting a business but who within a specified period of starting the program
would find one; second, participants who had already a concrete idea of starting a business; and
third, participants who had only a basic and tentative idea of starting a business. In stark contrast,
17
Birley (1984) classified entrepreneurship into three sets of potential customers: conventional
full-time students; entrepreneurs (those who are just starting businesses and those who are
managing ongoing businesses); and third, business advisors such as bankers, accountants and
government policy makers.
From a planning viewpoint, Hynes (1996) suggested that entrepreneurship education
should be incorporated into the non-business disciplines of engineering and science where
product ideas emerge but are often ignored because students are not sufficiently educated in the
knowledge and skills required for start-ups. In light of this, there is a growing trend towards
university-wide programs in entrepreneurship education (Streeter et al., 2002). According to
Streeter and his associates, the core objective of university-wide programs is to extend the
opportunity of entrepreneurship education to all students in the university, regardless of their
faculty or subject major. As entrepreneurship education transcends all fields of studies, it is no
longer associated exclusively with business graduates. In response to the promising appeal of
entrepreneurship education across faculties, business schools have joined forces with other
departments within the university to offer students customized entrepreneurship courses, where
the curriculum addresses the integration of the complex processes of entrepreneurship with
respect to the specialized technical areas of their respective field of studies (Streeter et al., ibid.).
Further evidence of the value of entrepreneurship education for non-business disciplines
of engineering and science is highlighted in a recent study of high-tech entrepreneurs in the U.S.
where the lack of knowledge and understanding about starting a business was perceived as a
major obstacle to high-tech entrepreneurship (Kourilsky and Walstad, 2002).
10
In a broader
18
context, Brush (1992) and Krueger (1993) proposed that entrepreneurship education should also
be targeted at students from families with entrepreneurs as these individuals generally tend to
have a more positive attitude towards this type of education.
In recent years, both researchers and policy makers, particularly in the U.K. have hailed
the need for entrepreneurship educators to focus on students at the pre-university level i.e.
secondary school. Commentators like Chamard (1989) and Singh (1990) believe that existing
secondary school systems inhibit entrepreneurship and do not foster the development of an
enterprise culture among the students. Similarly, Filion (1994) and Gasse (1985) emphasized the
importance of identifying and cultivating entrepreneurial potential at the secondary school level
when the individuals’ career options are still open.
The key for entrepreneurship education providers is to understand that, given the wide
variety of entrepreneurship programs on offer, it is not surprising that different types of programs
will attract different groups of participants (J ack and Anderson, 1998). Not all participants of
entrepreneurship education have the intention to start a new business as some simply embark on
a program to enhance their knowledge of the field, a field that is very popular and rapidly
growing in the present-day (Block and Stumpf, 1992; J ack and Anderson, ibid.). The challenge
for entrepreneurship educators is to target their courses and training programs to all interested
parties, including to those who have no direct intention to become entrepreneurs because these
non-interested groups may very well provide the supporting base to existing and potential
entrepreneurs.
19
However, it is important that the entrepreneurship curricula match the needs of different
participants. Past studies have shown that entrepreneurs are often reluctant to participate in the
courses offered by local colleges and university because they perceived that these courses are too
theoretical and ‘academically oriented’ (McCarthy et al., 1997). For example, in response to the
possible mismatch between the expectations of undergraduate students and the business
community, McCarthy et al. proposed an entrepreneurship program that enhances the real-life
practical experiences of these students while providing assistance to businesses that are
struggling with post start-up problems. Their proposed model aimed at benefiting both the
undergraduates and the business community.
3.5 Deliverers of entrepreneurship courses
The literature calls for a balance between academics and practitioners, known as
teamwork teaching in the delivery of entrepreneurship education (McMullan and Long, 1987).
11
Academics usually contribute and provide evidence based on theoretically grounded studies
while practitioners teach by providing practical examples of how to make things happen.
Practitioners who teach entrepreneurship are given a job title that reflects this non-faculty status,
e.g. Adjunct Faculty. There is a general consensus in the field that adjunct faculties are “useful
additions” to the teaching team, however, they are not builders of intellectual capital, which is
critical for long-term legitimacy (Hills, 1988). Entrepreneurship education may also entail
cooperative teaching from faculties across a number of different schools such as management,
engineering, law, and computer science. Endowed positions or chairs in entrepreneurship are
common among members of the entrepreneurship teaching team (Katz, 1991). Based on Katz’s
20
study, the first endowed position in entrepreneurship was in 1963 at Georgia State University,
and the second one was in 1975. By 1985, there were a total of 25 endowed positions in the U.S.,
and the number has continued rising over the years, reaching a total of 102, 123, 271 and 406
positions in 1990, 1994, 1999 and 2003 respectively.
12
Endowed positions outside of the U.S.
grew from 4 in 1991 to 34, and 158 in 1999 and 2003 respectively.
A major weakness in the supply of entrepreneurship educators is the lack of doctoral
programs in entrepreneurship to feed trained academics into the career pipeline (Saks and
Gaglio, 2002). Even with existing entrepreneurship doctorates, these individuals usually come
from other disciplines like organizational behavior, marketing, and finance, producing a wide
range of backgrounds among entrepreneurship researchers. The cross-disciplinary background of
these researchers have contributed to the plethora of entrepreneurship studies that draw on
various theories from the fields of psychology (e.g. Krueger and Dickson, 1994), economics (e.g.
Evans and Leighton, 1990), strategy (e.g. Hitt et al., 2001) and organization behavior (e.g. Hult
et al., 2003). However, the diverse backgrounds of these scholars have contributed to
entrepreneurship education’s struggle in establishing itself as a legitimate field, distinct from
other disciplines (Brush et al., 2003). What accounts for the lack of specific entrepreneurial
doctoral programs? The answer probably lies in the inherent difficulty of developing an
entrepreneurship program that balances both research and practical business. The rapid growth of
entrepreneurship education at the undergraduate level has far outstripped the development of
postgraduate courses, particularly doctorate offerings in entrepreneurship, resulting in an under-
supply of doctoral-trained entrepreneurship faculty to develop the field’s scholarly research and
knowledge (Brush et al., ibid.).
21
4. EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Many researchers including Block and Stumpf (1992) and Curran and Stanworth (1989)
have identified the need for evaluating entrepreneurship education and training programs. In the
extant literature, there are numerous studies that attempt to measure the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education and training. Yet, implementing an effective research design to
isolate the effects of different programs across universities is a monumental task. The vast
majority of studies that attempt to examine the link between entrepreneurship education and new
venture creation suffer from intrinsic procedural and methodological limitations (Curran and
Storey, 2002; Gorman and Hanlon, 1997).
13
Longitudinal research designs, using control groups
to compare participants with individuals who did not have entrepreneurial educational
experience are needed to examine the lasting effects of entrepreneurship education and training
interventions. As Gorman and Hanlon (ibid.:71) asserted, “since the cumulative impact of
repeated exposure to education for entrepreneurship should be expected to have a much greater
impact on attitudes and propensity, a difficult but important challenge for researchers will be to
measure the overall effectiveness of these programs”.
There is unequivocal consensus among researchers that one of the primary economic
measures of entrepreneurship program effectiveness is the number of new businesses started
(McMullan et al., 2001). The literature provides evidence of the positive relationship between
entrepreneurship education and the number of venture start-ups. Individuals who have attended
entrepreneurship courses have a higher tendency to start their own businesses at some point in
their career than those who attended other courses (Charney and Libecap, 2000
14
; McMullan and
22
Gillin, 1998).
15
Clouse (1990),
16
Garnier and Gasse (1990)
17
, and Garnier et al. (1991)
18
provided
additional evidence that participation in an entrepreneurship program has a positive impact on
one’s decision to start a new venture. In a similar vein, Price and Monroe (1992)
19
found that
entrepreneurship training has a positive relationship with venture growth and development.
McMullan et al. (1985) measured venture creation activities of students taking three or
more new venture development courses at the MBA level of University of Calgary and found a
relatively high start-up rate among the graduates, i.e. 14% of the graduates started businesses.
Similarly, Brown et al. (1987) surveyed participants of an entrepreneurship program called
“Your Future in Business” that aims to address the education needs of potential and existing
entrepreneurs, and they concluded that a significant number of new ventures were created by the
graduates of the program. Furthermore, education and training of entrepreneurs have been
repeatedly cited as an effective way to reduce small business failure (Carrier, 1999).
20
The contribution of entrepreneurship education in society is well documented in the
literature. As noted by Galloway and Brown (2002), in addition to developing skills for business
start-up and ownership, entrepreneurship education makes a significant contribution in terms of
the quality of graduate start-ups, and it influences general attitudes to entrepreneurship in the
long term. In Galloway and Brown’s view, entrepreneurship education represents a positive
motivation in terms of promoting entrepreneurship as a respectable and valuable career option.
E.E inevitably influences the population’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship and assists
in the creation and maintenance of an enterprising culture. In the long run, it helps build a risk
23
tolerant and entrepreneurial society. Entrepreneurship courses also prepare participants for
intrapreneurial challenges in large corporations where skills such as creativity, innovation and
proactiveness are essential. As an integral component in the venture support system,
entrepreneurship education compliments incubators, science parks, and venture capital
operations in backing various actors of the entrepreneurial economy. These actors may use the
knowledge and know how acquired from the entrepreneurship courses to grow existing
businesses. In addition, these courses may also serve as entrepreneurial networking platforms for
the participants. Hence, the evaluation of the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education goes
beyond traditional business start-up measures.
5. POTENTIAL GROWTH OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
The growth in entrepreneurship education is evident by the avalanche of entrepreneurship
centers, chairs, conferences, journals and programs (Plaschka and Welsch 1990). In recent years,
entrepreneurship education has been associated with rising professional associations that operate
through a network of formal and informal groups. At the conferences of these associations,
theoretician-researchers socialize with practitioners; junior members meet with senior authors
and professors, and colleagues join together to share recent information, developments and
innovations in the field.
21
The growth of entrepreneurship education goes well beyond the U.S.
As reported in Brockhaus’s (1991) study, entrepreneurship is recognized as a major tool for
economic development worldwide, beyond both the U.S. and Europe. Universities worldwide
(including former communist countries) not only offer entrepreneurship courses but also conduct
consistent stream of practical and theoretical research on entrepreneurship issues.
24
The prevailing question in the field is what the future of entrepreneurship education is
and can it achieve legitimacy like other business disciplines? The answer is presently unknown
but there are many promising signs indeed; key among these are the development of
entrepreneurship program and centers; the increase in publication outlets and tightening of
quality controls on published research; the growth of professional organizations; the proliferation
of sources of funding; and the rise of endowed positions.
22
Evidence indicate that
entrepreneurship education in colleges and universities is spreading rapidly and steadily over the
years and given its positive contribution to the economy it is not likely that demand for
entrepreneurship education will dissipate in the coming years.
The entrepreneurship field has gained considerable momentum over the years and has
achieved the greatest growth rate in the United States (Dana, 1992). Dana also found that in
1970, 25 institutions of higher learning in the US offered entrepreneurship courses, in 1985,
more than 200 institutions joined in the entrepreneurship marathon, and by 1992,
entrepreneurship was taught in more than 500 learning establishments in the US. Unfortunately,
no studies in the 21
st
century have documented the progress of entrepreneurship courses at
institutions of higher learning in the USA and worldwide but the founding of the Roundtable on
Entrepreneurship Education (REE) USA in 1998 by Stanford University provides a positive
indication that entrepreneurship education has permeated many business schools in the USA.
23
Following the success of REE USA in 1998, the international conference for entrepreneurship
educators was extended to other parts of the world namely REE Europe in 2001, REE Latin
America in 2003, and REE Asia in 2004. At all of these REE conferences, a strong participation
from the faculties of business and engineering belonging to leading universities was evident.
25
These experts converge to share their entrepreneurial programs’ success and failure stories and to
learn from their contemporaries ways to strengthen their entrepreneurship course offerings and
trainings.
24
As discussed in Section 3.2., the quality of entrepreneurship education is reflected in the
depth of its programs, and entrepreneurial programs can be assessed by a number of criteria such
as the number of graduate or undergraduate courses offered; the level of commitment to and
formalization of the program, the amount of institutional resources available in the form of
faculty and staff dedicated to the program, the availability of financial aid for students; and the
presence of extracurricular organizations in the form of clubs, societies, and special interest
groups supported by the program (Robinson and Haynes, 1991). Overall, evidence in the extant
literature indicates that entrepreneurship education has achieved a considerable level of depth in
its programs and has indeed met its goal of quality education and training for aspiring and
present entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, there are further opportunities for future entrepreneurship
education to expand its breadth and depth beyond existing levels.
6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Despite the intense publicity of entrepreneurship education as an agent for new venture
creation, Laukannen (2000) questioned the ethical and moral aspects associated with this
publicity. With the tremendous growth of entrepreneurship programs worldwide, individuals,
both old and young have been inspired and, to some extent, exhorted to start their own
26
businesses. People are exposed to entrepreneurship sentiments at a very young age through both
the primary and secondary school systems. Children are conditioned to think that self-
employment is the ultimate path for a successful and respectable career.
However Laukannen provided an intriguing perspective on the ethical issues involved in
the provision of entrepreneurship education. He offered an alternative view that society in
general is implicitly pressured to take the entrepreneurial plunge notwithstanding the inherent
risk and uncertainty involved. Given the extreme “pressure” these people are exposed to in lieu
of the intense interest in entrepreneurial activity, there is a possibility that they may be strongly
encouraged under the pretext of economic development. Furthermore, the teaching style of
entrepreneurship educators, which appears to be more aggressive than the usual impartial manner
of other academicians, seems unorthodox and unneeded in academia. Generally,
entrepreneurship educators have a greater expectation of their students to embark on an
entrepreneurial career upon completion of the course. Unlike graduates in science or engineering,
who may not assume roles associated with their training and education, participants of
entrepreneurship courses are expected to advance their career in self-employment activities.
Entrepreneurship education also tends to overemphasize the contribution of the individual
in the creation of new ventures, while underplaying the role of teams and existing businesses in
the spawning of new businesses. According to Laukannen (ibid.), most entrepreneurship courses
are designed to cover a wide range of business contexts and industries which might be too
generalized for the majority of students, particularly those with limited working experience to
leverage on for starting new businesses.
27
However, from a positive perspective, Dyer (1994) proposed that specialized courses and
training in entrepreneurship may enhance the individual’s confidence in starting new businesses.
Indeed, in a seminal paper, Krueger and Brazeal (1994) highlighted that entrepreneurship
education improves perceived feasibility for entrepreneurship by increasing the knowledge of
students and promoting self-efficacy among them. Walstad and Kourilsky (1998) provided
additional support that entrepreneurship education and training improved desirability for
entrepreneurship by convincing students that it is a highly regarded and socially acceptable
career in society.
7. NEW PERSPECTIVES ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
In line with the critical role entrepreneurship education serves in the venture creation
system, numerous studies have been carried out to investigate the effects of entrepreneurial
education on entrepreneurship. These investigations encompass research areas such as the
determination of the positive impact of entrepreneurship education on the decision to start a new
venture (Charney and Libecap, 2000;
25
Garnier et al., 1991
26
), the identification of a positive
relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial success (Ronstadt, 1985;
Sexton and Upton, 1987); the investigation of a positive relationship between entrepreneurship
education and economic development (McMullan and Long, 1987); and the examination of
people’s beliefs that entrepreneurship education promotes positive entrepreneurial attitudes
(Donckels, 1991; Kantor, 1988).
28
However, with the exception of a research by Lee and Wong (2003), there has been a
lack of research, if any, on the impact of attitude towards entrepreneurship education (hereinafter
referred to as AEE) on entrepreneurship. Lee & Wong (ibid.) argued that it is important to
examine AEE because the application of entrepreneurship education alone to explain the
entrepreneurial phenomenon may not be sufficient. The authors explained that AEE is critical as
there can be a wide array of entrepreneurship courses and training available as part of the venture
support system, but if the target group does not perceive that entrepreneurship education will
assist them in new venture creation and/or the process of managing a venture, the existence of
entrepreneurship education might be redundant as a whole.
Despite the existence of numerous studies that examined the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and new business founding, very little is known about the effects of
attitudes towards entrepreneurship education on new venture creation. Limited studies in the past
have indicated that small business owners possess negative attitudes towards formal education
and training (Kailer, 1990), and that most small businesses are prejudiced against participating in
formal training (Stanworth and Gray, 1992). However, Marlow (1992) found that minority group
entrepreneurs and owners of small firms in the West Midlands, UK, had considerable interest in
formal training.
Although Lee and Wong (ibid.) found a positive relationship between attitudes towards
entrepreneurship education and new venture creation, they did not report the direction of causal
link between the two variables. The authors called for future research to establish the causal
relationship between AEE and new venture creation because according to them, different causal
29
links will yield different implications for academia and policy makers in their pursuit of
promoting entrepreneurship.
27
Entrepreneurship education is also conceived as an important motivating tool for special
groups such as women (Price and Monroe, 1992) minority blacks (Walstad and Kourilsky,
1998), and ecopreneurs (Anderson and Leal, 1997; Schuyler, 1998). There is a focus on
entrepreneurship education for women because they have consistently proven themselves to be a
significant driving force in the economy by establishing and expanding businesses at a
tremendous pace. The Centre for Women’s Business Research (2002) reported that one in 18
women in the U.S. is a business owner, and thus, emphasized the need to provide education and
training by extending practical and professional assistance to women in the entrepreneurial
community. With five inspiring education and support programs, i.e. the Women’s Business
Enterprise (WBE) certification from the Women’s Business Development Center (WBDC),
Women’s President Organization’s (WPO) Minnesota Chapter, Smart Growth Program,
Mentoring for Women Business Owners, and Entrepreneurship Minor courses, the Center for
Women Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship Education at the Metropolitan State University in
the U.S. is an active provider of entrepreneurship education and training for women.
28
In the case of black minorities, evidence in the literature show that the number of black-
owned firms is relatively small, accounting for 3.6% of all firms, 1% of total sales and receipts,
and generating $52,000 in sales and receipts, compared with an average of $196,000 over all
businesses. Given the relatively small size of black businesses compared to other businesses,
blacks, particularly black youth have expressed desire for more entrepreneurship courses in
30
schools to enhance their entrepreneurial potential. As Kourilsky and Walstad (ibid.) advocated,
entrepreneurship education improves the feasibility for entrepreneurship by increasing the
knowledge of students, building confidence, and promoting self-efficacy. It also develops
perceived desirability for entrepreneurship by showing students that this activity is highly
regarded and socially accepted by the community. Furthermore, Walstad and Kourilsky (ibid.)
found that black minorities have greater interest in entrepreneurship and stronger desire to learn
more about it as compared to whites.
Environmental entrepreneurs or ecopreneurs are entrepreneurs whose business focus is
driven by both profit, and concern for the environment. Ecopreneurship is an innovative, market-
based approach that identifies and exploits opportunities to improve environmental quality
(Anderson and Leal, ibid.). Given the relatively high proportion of Americans who are concerned
with the environment (three-fourths consider the environment a “high” priority and four out of
five Americans consider themselves to be environmentalists), there are ample opportunities for
ecopreneurs to make a difference in the environmental sector (Baden and Noonan, 1996). Indeed,
Samson (1994) suggested that educators in environmental and business fields should incorporate
ecopreneurial-related lessons into their courses to help entrepreneurs identify a potential business
opportunity when there is an environmental need or problem.
Notwithstanding the growing interest in entrepreneurship education for women, black
minorities, and ecopreneurs, there is a dearth of literature in these areas. It will be worthwhile for
future studies to examine the issues pertaining to entrepreneurship education for women, blacks,
31
and ecopreneurs, which will help enhance the field’s understanding of the contribution of
entrepreneurship education for these niche groups.
8. CONCLUSION
There is a continuing interest in the field of entrepreneurship education, and research in
this area has grown rapidly over the years. Despite the growth in entrepreneurship education and
training, there is little uniformity in the courses offered at all levels. Nonetheless, commentators
in the field emphasized that non-uniformity in the courses offered is not necessarily a bad
approach to program development as the key is to develop an effective mechanism that
systematically documents the effects of those courses. While the literature distinguished between
enterprise education and entrepreneurship education, there is a general agreement among
researchers that the ultimate aim of both types of education is to encourage independent business
creations. On the other hand, the literature indicates a consensus on the incompatibility of the
curriculum of a business school with that of an entrepreneurship program. Although there has
been much debate as to whether entrepreneurship can be taught, recent studies reported that both
the scientific (i.e. functional areas of business) and creative aspects of entrepreneurship can be
nurtured by entrepreneurship education. Empirical evidence indicate that entrepreneurship
education is positively related to the creative facets of entrepreneurship such as the individual’s
adeptness in creating opportunities and ability to perceive the desirability and feasibility of a
venture.
32
In terms of the teaching methods employed in entrepreneurship education and training,
the learning approach has been touted as an effective path towards developing the
entrepreneurial spirit. Entrepreneurship educators should stress in the curriculum, the importance
of hands-on, active participation within a real life entrepreneurial environment, where
constructive feedback from an expert is provided. Evidence in the extant literature suggest that
not only does entrepreneurship education positively influences individuals’ propensity towards a
more entrepreneurial stance, attitudes towards entrepreneurship education was also found to be
positively related to new venture creation. Future research should further examine the
relationship between these factors. Additionally, given the dearth of literature in the areas of
entrepreneurship education for women, black minorities, and ecopreneurs, future studies should
explore these fields of research at greater length.
The new millennium is likely to involve greater environmental uncertainty and
competition among businesses, resulting in a highly tumultuous economy that pressurizes
government policy makers to increase the current stock of businesses. J ob seekers too are not
spared from this potential change. Flexibility and innovativeness will be critical survival skills in
the highly competitive job market. Hence, it is vital that societies are encouraged to pursue
entrepreneurial careers, and what is even more crucial is for universities and institutions of
higher learning to provide courses and support to these potential entrepreneurs. Ultimately, this
translates to the need for entrepreneurship education and training to be continuously monitored
and evaluated to ensure that their objectives are met. It will be essential for evaluation studies to
measure the pre- and post- test effects of entrepreneurship courses, and incorporate longitudinal
33
research designs that use control groups to compare participants of entrepreneurship programs
with individuals who did not have entrepreneurial educational experience.
34
ENDNOTES
1
Please see Katz (2003) for a chronology of the growth of tertiary entrepreneurship education in
the U.S.
2
Entrepreneurship Awareness: General information programs on the reflection of
entrepreneurship as a career option. Business Creation: Training in technical, human, and
managerial skills to create a business. Small Business Development: Made-to-measure programs
to answer the specific needs of owners/managers who cannot afford to pay specialist. Training of
trainers: Programs to develop educators’ skills in consultation, education, and follow-up of small
businesses.
3
There are currently more than 1,500 colleges and universities in the U.S. that offer some form
of entrepreneurship training, more than 100 active university-based entrepreneurship centers, and
more than 270 endowed professorships and chairs in entrepreneurship in the U.S. with an
investment of nearly US$500 million. In addition, Robinson and Haynes (1991) reported that a
new entrepreneurship center operates with a typical budget of US$2 million.
4
The various business functions are finance, marketing, production, and human resource.
5
Some of the examples of differences between the learning focus of business schools and
entrepreneurship education are learning in the classroom vs. learning while and through doing;
evaluation through written assessment vs. evaluation by judgment of people and events through
direct feedback, success in learning measured by knowledge-based examination pass vs. success
in learning by solving problems and learning from failure; critical judgment after analysis of
large amounts of information vs. “gut feel” decision making with limited information; seeking
the correct answer with time to do it vs. developing the most appropriate solution under pressure.
35
6
Entrepreneurship consists of originating or starting a company while small business
management consists of managing an existing company.
7
“Unsupported Isolated Course” is the combination of a single course with low integration,
while “Integration Program” is a combination of multiple courses that are well integrated both
internally (with one another) and externally (with the curriculum).
8
Other combinations proposed by the framework are “Unidisciplinary Approach” (single
discipline, focusing on mature firms) and “Interdisciplinary Approach” (multiple disciplines,
focusing on start-up firms).
9
The “educators point of view” of program development is commonly found in academic
institutions like universities, while student-based perspective is generally adopted when the
priority lies in the psychosocial well-being of students.
10
Stanford Technology Ventures Program (STVP) plays an active role at Stanford University in
educating future scientists and engineers about high-technology entrepreneurship.
11
It is important to note that teamwork teaching is more expensive, requires higher commitment
from academicians, and it takes time for the partnership to succeed.
12
These figures are based on a study by St. Louis University.
13
These studies do not measure the pre- and post-test effects of entrepreneurship education, and
they also lack control groups. Additionally, McMullan et al. (2001) reported that the commonly
used subjective participant satisfaction measures are not correlated with objective measures of
subsequent venture performance.
14
Entrepreneurship graduates were 3 times more likely to start new businesses than general
business graduates.
36
15
McMullan and Gillin (1998) observed that 38% of the MBA Hybrid Entrepreneurship
Program graduates at University of Calgary started new businesses beyond eight months of
graduation as compared to 18% of the MBA program (no entrepreneurship courses) graduates at
Australian University.
16
Clouse (1990) highlighted that an introductory entrepreneurship course has a statistically
significant impact on students’ simulated new venture decision behavior. About 75% of the
participants developed positive decision behavior at the end of the semester as compared to at the
inception of the course.
17
Out of the 228 participants surveyed in the Quebec “Become an Entrepreneur” course, Garnier
and Gasse (1990) found that 14% set up a business within 18 months after completing the
entrepreneurship course and 51% actively pursued an entrepreneurial idea.
18
Garnier et al. (1991) assessed that a year after attending a televised course in entrepreneurship,
12% of participants had launched a venture, 12% had developed the firm they owned before the
course, and 44% had actively pursued their intentions to go into business.
19
According to Price and Monroe (1992), entrepreneurs of the Fast Trac training program
significantly increased their full-time employees and annual sales by 27% and 33% respectively.
20
Carrier (1999) reported that 80% of the entrepreneurs surveyed believed that training in export
financing will assist them in their businesses, while more than half perceived that knowledge
about the legal aspects of international trade will improve their export potential.
21
For example, the Annual Conference organized by the Academy of Management (AOM) -
Entrepreneurship Division attracts researchers and practitioners from both the U.S and
worldwide. As of May 2005, there are 1,777 members in the Entrepreneurship Division,
37
comprising of 1,194 domestic (U.S) and 583 international members. Out of the 1,777 members,
1,176 are academics, 19 are emeritus, 125 are executives and 457 are students.
22
International J ournal of Entrepreneurship Education (IJ EE), an online journal dedicated to the
publication of research papers and case studies on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship
education was introduced in 2002.
23
For a complete information on the Roundtable for Entrepreneurship Education, please visit the
websitehttp://ree.stanford.edu.
24
REE USA conference in 2002 attracted over 75 members from 40 different universities
25
Please refer to Endnote 14.
26
Please refer to Endnote 18.
27
If further research indicates that positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship education do
influence start-up activities, policy makers at both the government and academic levels should
invest their efforts in changing the attitudes and mindsets of their target group and develop
incentives for people to be genuinely interested and willing to commit their time to
entrepreneurship education. The emphasis of entrepreneurship will shift from merely providing
entrepreneurship courses and training to changing attitudes of would-be entrepreneurs. If
business start-ups influence attitudes towards entrepreneurship education, business schools and
colleges should target these groups of entrepreneurs who are interested in gathering knowledge
and skills from entrepreneurship education and are willing to sacrifice their time, money and
effort. While these people may have been successful in establishing businesses, the real pay-off
concerns whether or not these businesses are successful in maintaining their position and growth
in the existing market. Therefore, entrepreneurship education is still very much relevant to these
entrepreneurs as the benefits of entrepreneurship education go beyond the start-up stage.
38
28
Please visithttp://www.metrostate.edu/com/cwe/education.html for further information on
these programs.
39
References
Acs, Z., Carlsson, B., and Karlsson, C., 1999, Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium
Enterprises and the Macro-economy. Cambridge University Press, London.
Anderson, T.L., and Leal, D.R, 1997, Enviro-capitalists: Doing good while doing well. Lanham:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Baden, J .A., and Nooman, D.S., 1996, The evolving environmentalism.http://www.free-
eco.org/free/pubs/DD.EE.html.
Béchard, J .P. and Toulouse, J .M., 1998, Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of
training objectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 317-332.
Birley, S., 1984, Education for Entrepreneurs: A UK/USA Comparative Study. Paper presented
at the Small Business Institute Directors Association, Denver, Colorado.
Block, Z. and Stumpf, A.A., 1992, Entrepreneurship Education Research: Experience and
Challenge, in Sexton, D.L. and Kasarada, J .D. (eds), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship,
PWS-Kent Publishing Company, USA: 17-42.
Brockhaus, R.H., 1991, Entrepreneurship Education and Research Outside North America.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3): 77-84.
40
Brown, L.E., Christy, R.L. and Banowetz, A.F., 1987, Perceptions of Success in Business Start-
up and the Impact of Entrepreneurial Education. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Babson College: Wellesley, MA: 660-661.
Brush, C., 1992, Research on women business owners: Past trends, new perspective and future
directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(4): 5-30.
Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I.M., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J .A., Hitt, M.H., Alvarez, S.A.,
Meyer, G.D. and Venkataraman, S., 2003, Doctoral Education in the Field of
Entreprneuership. Journal of Management 29(3): 309-331.
Bruyat, C. and J ulien, P.A., 2000, Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing 16(2): 165-180.
Carrier, C., 1999, The training and development needs of owner-manager of small businesses
with export potential. Journal of Small Business Management 37(4): 30-41.
Carsrud, A.L., 1991, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Formation: A Brief Perspective on the
Infrastructure in Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3): 69-75.
Center for Women’s Business Research, 2002,http://www.nfwbo.org/index.asp.
41
Chamard, J ., 1989, Public Education: Its Effect on Entrepreneurial Characteristics. Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship 6(2): 23-30.
Charney, A. and Libecap, G.D., (2000), Impact of Entrepreneurship Education. Insights. A
Kauffman Research Series. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Learning.
Clouse, Van. G.H., 1990, A Controlled Experiment Relating Entrepreneurial Education to
Students’ Start-Up Decisions. Journal of Small Business Management 28(2): 45-54.
Collins, O.F., Moore, D.G. and Umwalla, D.B., 1964, The Enterprising Man. East Lansing, MI:
MSU Business Studies, Bureau of Business and Economic Research.
Cox, L.W., Mueller, S.L., Moss, S.E., 2002/2003, The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(2).
Curran, J . and Stanworth, J ., 1989, Education and Training for Enterprise: Some problems of
classification, evaluation, policy and research. International Small Business Journal 7(2).
Curran, J . and Storey. D.J ., 2002, Small business policy in the United Kingdom: the inheritance
of the small business service and implications for its future effectiveness. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 20:163-177.
42
Dana, L.P., 1992, Entrepreneurial Education in Europe. Journal of Education for Business 68(2):
74-78.
Dana, L.P., 2001, The Education and Training of Entrepreneurs in Asia. Education & Training
43(8/9).
Donckels, R., 1991, Education and Entrepreneurship Experience from Secondary and University
Education in Belgium. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise 9(1): 35-42.
Dyer, W.G. J r., 1994, Towards a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Winter 19(2): 7-21.
Evans, D.S. and Leighton, L., 1990, Small Business Formation by Unemployed and Employed
workers. Small Business Economics, 2(4): 319-320
Filion, L.J ., 1994, Ten Steps to Entrepreneurial Teaching. Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship 5(1): 27-31.
Galloway, L. and Brown, W., 2002, Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the
creation of high growth firms? Education + Training 44(8/9): 398-405.
Garavan, T.N. and O’Cinneide, B., 1994, Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes:
A Review and Evaluation-Part 2. Journal of European Industrial Training 18(11): 13-21.
43
Garnier, B. and Gasse, Y., 1990, Training Entrepreneurs Through Newspapers. Journal of Small
Business Management 28(1): 70-73.
Garnier, B., Gasse, Y., and Raynal, C., 1991, Evaluation of a Televised Course in
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 9(1): 25-34.
Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H., 1994, Experiments in Entrepreneurship Education: Successes
and Failures. Journal of Business Venturing 9: 179-187.
Gasse, Y., 1985, A Strategy for the Promotion and Identification of Potential Entrepereneurs at
the Secondary School Level. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College:
Wellesley, MA: 538-559.
Gibb, A. A., 1993, The Enterprise Culture and Education. Understanding Enterprise Education
and its Links with Small Business Entrepreneurships and Wider Educational Goals.
International Small Business Management Journal 11(3).
Gibb, A.A., 1996, Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect
them in the 21
st
century business school? British Journal of Management 7: 309-321.
Gibb, Y.K. and Nelson, E.G., 1996, Personal Competences, Training and Assessment: A
Challenge for Small Business Trainers. Proceedings of the European Small Business Seminar:
97-107.
44
Gnyawali, D.R. and Fogel, D.S., 1994, Environments for entrepreneurship development:
dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer: 43-
62.
Gorman, G. and Hanlon, D., 1997, Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education,
Enterprise Education and Education For Small Business Management: A Ten–Year Literature
Review. International Small Business Journal 15(3): 56-78.
Hansemark, O.C., 1998, The Effects of an Entrepreneurship Programme on Need for
Achievement and Locus of Control of Reinforcement. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 4(1): 28.
Hansemark, O.C., 2003, Need for Achievement, Locus of Control, and the Prediction of
Business Start-Ups: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Economic Psychology 24(3): 301.
Hills, G.E., 1988, Variations in University Entrepreneurship Education: An Empirical Study of
an Evolving Field. Journal of Business Venturing 3: 109-122.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., Sexton, D.L., 2001, Guest editors’ introduction to the
special issue: Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation.
Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 479.
45
Hult, G.T.M., Snow, C.C., and Kandemir, D., 2003, The role of entrepreneurship in building
cultural competitiveness in different organizational types. Journal of Management 29(3): 401.
Hynes, B., 1996, Entrepreneurship Education and training – introducing entrepreneurship into
non-business disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Training 20(8): 10-17.
Interman, 1992, International Management Development Network in Cooperation with the
United Nations Development Program (UDP) and the International Labor Office (ILO).
Networking for Entrepreneurship Development, Geneva: International Labor Office.
J ack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R., 1998, Entrepreneurship Education within the Condition of
Entreprenology, Proceedings of the Conference on Enterprise and Learning, Aberdeen.
J amieson, I., 1984, Schools and enterprise, in Watts, A.G. and Moran, P. (Eds). Education for
Enterprise, CRAC, Ballinger, Cambridge: 19-27.
J ennings, D.F. and Zeithamil, C.P., 1983, Locus of Control: A Review and Directions for
Entrepreneurial Research. Proceedings of the Academy of Management: 417-421.
J ohannisson, B., 1991, University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 3(1): 67-82.
46
Kailer, N., 1990, Further Training in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Austria). Journal of
Small Business Management 28(1): 60-63.
Kantor, J ., 1988, Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? A Canadian Experiment. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise 5(4): 12-19.
Kao, R.W.Y., 1994, From General Management to Entrepreneurship: The Business (B) School
Challenge. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 11(2): 4-10.
Katz, J .A., 1991, Endowed positions: Entrepreneurship and related fields. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 15 (3): 53-67.
Katz, J .A., 2003, The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing 18(2): 283-300.
Knight, R.M., 1987, Can Business Schools Produce Entrepreneurs? An empirical Study.
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College: Wellesley, MA: 603-604.
Koch, L.T., 2002/2003, Theory and Practice of Entrepreneurship Education: a German View.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(4).
Kolb, D., Rabin, M. and McIntyre, J .M., 1974, Organisational Philosophy: An Experiential
Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J .
47
Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B., 1998, Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge,
attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing 13(1):
77-88.
Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B., 2002, The Early Environment and Schooling Experience of
High-Tech Entrepreneurs: Insights for Entrepreneurship Education. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 1-20.
Krueger, N., 1993, The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(1): 5-21.
Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D.V., 1994, Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(3): 91-104.
Krueger, N.F. and Dickson, P.R., 1994, How believing in ourselves increases risk taking:
perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Science, 25: 385-400.
Laukkanen, M., 2000, Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micro-mechanism for endogenous regional growth. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development 12: 25-47.
Lee, L. and Wong, P.K., 2003, Attitude towards Entrepreneurship Education and New Venture
Creation. Journal of Enterprising Culture 11(4): 339-357.
48
Maillat, D., 1998, Innovative milieux and new generation of regional policies. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development 10: 1-16.
Marlow. S., 1992, The Take-up of Business Growth Training Schemes by Ethnic Minority-
owned Small Firms in Britain. International Small Business Journal 10(4): 34-46.
McCarthy, A., Morris, P.J ., and Winn, J ., 1997, A New Look At Undergraduate
Entrepreneurship Education. Proceedings of USABE Annual National Conference
Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Global Economic Development. San Francisco, California.
McClelland, D.C., 1961, The Achieving Society. Princeton, N.J : Van Nostrand.
McMullan, W.Ed. and Boberg, A.L., 1991, The Relative Effectiveness of Projects in Teaching
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 9(9): 14-24.
McMullan, W.Ed., Chrisman, J .J ., and Vesper, K., 2001, Some Problems in Using Subjective
Measures of Effectiveness to Evaluate Entrepreneurial Assistance Programs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26(1): 37-54.
McMullan, W. Ed. and Gillin, L.M., 1998, Industrial Viewpoint - Entrepreneurship Education.
Technovation 18(4): 275-286.
49
McMullan, W.Ed. and Long, W.A., 1987, Entrepreneurship Education in The Nineties. Journal
of Business Venturing 2: 261-275.
McMullan, W.Ed., Long, W.A. and Graham, J .B., 1986, Assessing Economic Value Added by
University-Based New-Venture Outreach Programs. Journal of Business Venturing 1: 225-
240.
McMullan, W.Ed., Long, W.A. and Wilson, A., 1985, MBA Concentration on Entrepreneurship.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 3(1): 18-22.
Parker, S.C., 2005, Learning about the unknown: How fast do entrepreneurs adjust their beliefs?
Forthcoming in Journal of Business Venturing.
Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J ., 2003, Enterprise education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28(2): 129-144.
Plaschka, G. R. and Welsch, H. P., 1990, Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education:
Curricular designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14(3): 55-70.
Preshing, W.A., 1991, Education by Projects. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship
9(1): 55-59.
50
Price, C. and Monroe, S., 1992, Educational Training for Women and Minority Entrepreneurs
Positively Impacts Venture Growth. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College: Wellesley, MA: 216-230.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M., 2001, Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial
learning. Journal of Small business and Enterprise Development 8(2): 150-158.
Robinson, P. and Haynes. M., 1991, Entrepreneurship Education in America’s Major
Universities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3): 41-52.
Ronstadt, R., 1985, Training Potential Entrepreneurs. In Entrepreneurship: What it is and How
to Teach It, edited by J . J . Kao and H.S. Stevenson. Boston, MSS: Harvard Business School.
Rosa, P., Scott, M.G. and Klandt. H., 1996, Educating Entrepreneurs in Modernising Economies
(Ipswich: Avebury).
Saee, J ., 1996, A Critical Evaluation of Australian Entrepreneurship Education and Training.
Proceedings of the Internationalising Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference,
Arnhem.
Saks, N.T. and Gaglio, C.M., 2002, Can Opportunity Identification Be Taught? Journal of
Enterprising Culture 10(4): 313-347.
51
Samson, K.J ., 1994, Teaching environmental entrepreneurship. In Business 16(6): 32-34.
Sandberg, W.R. and Gatewood, E.J ., 1991, A profile of entrepreneurship research center:
Orientations, interests, activities, and resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3):
11-24.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B., 1984, Entrepreneurship Education Suggestions for Increasing
Effectiveness. Journal of Small Business Management 22(2).
Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J .D., 1992, The State of the Art of Entrepreneurships. P.W. Kent
Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
Sexton, D.L. and Upton, N., 1987, Evaluation of an Innovative Approach to Teaching
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 25(1): 35-43.
Shepherd. D.A. and Douglas, E.J ., 1997, Is Management Education Developing or Killing the
Entrepreneurial Spirit? Proceedings of the 1997 USASBE Annual National Conference
Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Global Economic Development, San Francisco, California.
Singh, J .B., 1990, Entrepreneurship Education as a Catalyst of Development in the Third World.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 7(4): 56-63.
52
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S, and Tarabishy, A., 2002, The State of Entrepreneurship Education in
the United States: A Nationwide Survey and Analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 1-22.
Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W., 1991, Trends in Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship Education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
15(3): 25-39.
Stanworth, J . and Gray, C., 1992, Entrepreneurship and Education: Action-based: Research with
Training Policy Implications in Britain. International Small Business Journal 10(2): 11-23.
Sternberg, R. and Wennekers, S., 2005, Determinants and Effects of New Business Creation:
Using Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data. Small Business Economics 24(3): 193.
Streeter, D.H., J aquette J r., J .P. and Hovis, K., 2002, University-wide Entrepreneurship and
Education: Alternative Models and Current Trends. Cornell University Working Paper 2002-
02.
Stumpf, S.S., Dunbar, R.L. and Mullen, T.P., 1991, Simulations in Entrepreneurial Education:
Oxymoron or Untapped Opportunity? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson
College: Wellesley, MA: 681-694.
53
Vesper, K.H., 1971, Venture initiation courses in U.S business schools. Academy of Management
Journal 6: 14-19.
Vesper, K.H., 1985, New Developments in entrepreneurship education. J .A. Hornaday et al.,
eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson College: 489-497.
Walstad, W.B. and Kourilsky, M.L, 1998, Entrepreneurial attitudes and knowledge of black
youth. Entrepreneurship in Theory and Practice 23(2): 5-18.
Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P., and Autio, E., 2005, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth:
Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics 24(3): 335.
Zeithamil, C.P. and Rice, G.H., 1987, Entrepreneurship/Small Business Education in American
Universities. Journal of Small Business Management 25(1): 44-50.
doc_976076311.pdf