Description
During on this detailed criteria clarify international dimensions of teaching entrepreneurship.
OpenAIR@RGU
The Open Access Institutional Repository
at Robert Gordon University
http://openair.rgu.ac.uk
This is an author produced version of a paper published in
International Dimensions of Teaching Entrepreneurship.
This version may not include final proof corrections and does not include
published layout or pagination.
Citation Details
Citation for the version of the work held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’:
ANDERSON, A. R. and JACK, S. L., 1999. Teaching the
entrepreneurial art. Available from OpenAI R@RGU. [online].
Available from:http://openair.rgu.ac.uk
Citation for the publisher’s version:
ANDERSON, A. R. and JACK, S. L., 1999. Teaching the
entrepreneurial art. In: D. S. EVANS, ed. International Dimensions
of Teaching Entrepreneurship. Paris: ESCEM. pp. 84 – 105.
Copyright
Items in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’, Robert Gordon University Open Access Institutional Repository,
are protected by copyright and intellectual property law. If you believe that any material
held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’ infringes copyright, please contact [email protected] with
details. The item will be removed from the repository while the claim is investigated.
1
Teaching the Entrepreneurial Art
Alistair R. Anderson and Sarah L. Jack
???????????
"I would suggest that successful entrepreneurship is an art form as much as, or perhaps more
than, it is an economic activity, and as such it is as difficult as any other artistic activity to
explain in terms of original method or environmental influence" .
Livesay 1982:13
???????????
ntrepreneurship is increasingly recognised as being vital to the regeneration and
development of our economies. With the advent of the so-called “Enterprise
Culture” (Keats and Abercrombie 1991), there has been widespread acceptance
that entrepreneurship is the engine that drives the economy of most nations
(Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997). Entrepreneurship is perceived to bring benefits at both
the macro level of economic development and also at the micro-level of personal achievement
and satisfaction, (Anderson, Kirkwood and J ack, 1998). The development, and indeed the
pervasion, of the Enterprise Culture has brought about academic interest in supporting this
new emphasis. This paper explores some of the issues surrounding enterprise in academia by
examining the teaching of entrepreneurship at Aberdeen University.
The paper first compares the rhetoric and the reality of entrepreneurship, it then moves
to consider a conceptualisation of entrerpeneurship. Central to the argument is that
entrerpeneurship is important, but that its very nature means that it is idiosyncratic and
unpredictable. Teaching entrepreneurship thus becomes problematic, since it is both art and
science. The science, which is largely seen as small business management, can be taught
within the conventional pedagogy. However, the art, the very nub of entrepreneurship, of
creation and innovation, does not appear to be teachable. This aspect is inductive and in bold
contrast to the rational deduction of resource management. It is highly subjective and involves
perceptual leaps which may transcend a conventional economic rationality. This vital aspect
is caricatured by Schumpeter’s oxymoron, the Creative Destructor.
Accordingly as academics we cannot directly provide, or teach this skill, it is
fundamentally experiential. J erry Katz’ seminal article (1991), makes the point that there are,
most likely, skills which can be taught and some that cannot. However we can furnish our
students with the opportunity to observe the operation of this ability. The exposure to
practising entrepreneurs allows students to perceive, to question and to absorb the form of this
art. In turn we anticipate that students will be able to use their acquired management skills,
their theoretical and their conceptual awareness, ( all of which we can teach), to bear upon the
art as demonstrated by the entrepreneurs. We see our entrepreneurial teaching role as having
three elements. First the science of management, to provide a critical awareness of how
businesses work. Secondly to develop conceptual awareness through the academic literature
of the nature of enterprise and thirdly to provide a bridge to tap the rich experiences of real
and practical entrepreneurial action. This view reflects Ryle’s comment, (1963) about the
important difference between knowing that and knowing how; to this we wish to add knowing
why.
Although is a clear indication of considerable growth in entrepreneurship courses and
programs there is very little consistency in approach, (Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997).
E
2
There is also preliminary evidence that entrepreneurial attributes can be positively
influenced by educational programs and that many entrepreneurship programs and courses are
able to build awareness of entrepreneurship as a career option and to encourage favourable
attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, the case for teaching entrepreneurship might
be strengthened if it was clear what qualities make for success in business-and therefore what
should be taught and which pupils might benefit from lessons, (The Economist, 1998).
Education also can serve a preparatory function in relation to new venture initiation or
start-up, whereby the transfer of knowledge and the acquisition and development of relevant
skills would be expected to increase the self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) and effectiveness of the
potential entrepreneur. In addition, this preparatory role can be extended to include
preparation for small business management of existing owner/ managers, as well as potential
entrepreneurs. Educational process and structure also should be important variables for
inquiry. For instance, we might expect the entrepreneurial learning process to be enhanced
through the provision of role models, the expansion and strengthening of personal networks,
and through temporary apprenticeship placements.
The context of teaching entrerpeneurship within an old and long established academic
institution is also discussed in terms of the effects of the culture and attitudes. However the
focus of the paper is the third element, the links from academe to experience. It explains the
methods and techniques used at Aberdeen to bridge the gap of art and science and discusses
the successes and failures. As Baumol (1983:30) puts it “How can one analyse and teach acts
whose nature is not yet known and whose effectiveness relies to a considerable degree on the
difficulty others have in foreseeing them?”
The Demand for Entrepreneurship Education
The 1980s and 1990s have seen an unprecedented growth in the demand for enterprise
education which has been matched by a corresponding growth in the number of courses
offered by both academic institutions and by enterprise agencies of one sort or another,
(Curran 1986). We wish to argue that this development is a consequence is a result of a
variety of inter-related changes in the national and international economy. We identify four
sources of demand, but have become acutely aware of the potential conflict between these
areas. In part this is consequence of the woollyness of the entrepreneurial concept.
Entrepreneurship has become an omnibus word, an overloaded concept and one that carries a
variety of meanings which pundits pick and choose from at will. Its meaning ranges from
small business operation, through new venture creation to innovation and individualism. As a
heuristic the breadth of the concept allows it to be used in diverse rhetoric, explanation and
justification. (Anderson 1995). To borrow an expression of Terry Eagleton’s (1991), it has
become a text, woven from a tissue of conceptual strands.
The first source of demand we have identified is governmental. This is primarily
economic and driven by the shift towards a post fordist economy. Flexible specialisation;
corporate downsizing, business re-engineering couple with individualism to be seen as a
solution to the failures of the old collectivisms. This “new capitalism” is identified by the
Marxist, David Harvey (1989:174), as Schumpertian innovation, the driving force of the post-
industrial paradigm. Fitzgerald 1993:77 notes the importance of management education for
national economic health. He points out that the Braverman (1974) deskilling thesis has never
be validated and that on the contrary, has been inverted by the need for enhanced skill levels.
Cannon (1991:149) suggests that enterprise provides the government with, “ a quick publicly
demonstrable, transaction based reaction, not a strategic response”. In contrast it has been
argued that enterprise culture develops naturally, (Hynes, 1996). However, given the
recognition of its importance we cannot solely rely on this passing on of knowledge, resulting
in the need to provide interventions to promote an entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial
knowledge.
3
J ob creation is major focus of this element. Timmons (1994) in the USA, Storey
(1994) and Roure (1997) all build, though critically, upon Birch’s (1979) seminal analysis
that new jobs in the economy are most likely to arise from entrepreneurial small firms.
Innovation is also important; J ohannison, (1987) notes that innovation cannot be planned by
large corporatist institutional processes. Drucker, (1985) reinforces the point that innovation
and entrepreneurship go hand-in-hand. All this reinforces Anderson et al’s, (1998) point that
the conditions of the 1990s mean that small business and entrepreneurship can no longer be
seen as marginal to modern economies. Hynes, (1996), puts this strongly, claiming an the
emergence of an SME economy, which leads to the need to prepare and educate potential
entrepreneurs to identify opportunities in the environment, and provide them with the
knowledge and skills necessary to capitalise and manage these opportunities. One outcome of
this concern in Scotland is the low level of the new business birth rate which has caused
political concern, (Scottish Enterprise 1995, 1996). This resulted in the implementation of the
Scottish Birth Rate Strategy, which aims to create an “Enterprise Culture” throughout
Scotland. A further interesting point is made by Rosa, (1992), that the process of enterprise
development and enterprise education is not so much the process of developing individual
businesses, but the process of developing the first, people who potentially own and actually
run these businesses and secondly the people who may work in these businesses.
We also detect a subsidiary thread to the political economy of entrepreneurship
education, the production of the friendly face of capitalism. The ideology of capitalism had
suffered in the post war years. The enterprise culture provided an opportunity to reassert its
value. Curran and Burrows, (1987:180) refer to the “remoralisation and recapitalisation of
capitalism”. Burrows, (1991) claims that this discourse has become, “one of the major
articulating principles of the age”. Goss, however, rather cynically notes, (1991), that the
Enterprise Culture’s affection for small business is rooted as much in the latter’s intangible
qualities as in precise measures of its effectiveness.
The second source of demand is that of the students. Young (1997), suggests that there are
two sets of reasons why students may want to study entrepreneurship. First, the student may
plan to start up their own business; secondly, they may wish to acquire knowledge which will
be helpful in their careers in larger organisations. Tan et al (1995), even propose that some
students may be attracted to enterprise learning as an insurance against an economic
downturn. Furthermore as Timmons (1994:vii) notes in the USA about one in eight is self
employed and the vast majority of the two million “millionaires” in the US have accumulated
their wealth through entrepreneurial acts of self employment. Thus it comes as little surprise
to find that the Gallup report, (1994), claims a demand for entrepreneurship education from
students. Some 85% of their respondents indicated a desire to learn more about
entrepreneurship. This is confirmed by the cross cultural study by Weihe and Reich, (1993).
Obviously this must be set in the context of the reported change wise”. In particular we see
being “street wise” as being aware of the non-linearity, Berger (1990), of entrepreneurial
learning. Another aspect is the need for a creative attitude to work, but its acquisition and
development is a quality rarely taught by professional educators (Pietrasinski, 1969). Time
and time again we hear the business community complain, perhaps with some justification,
that our graduates have no real business knowledge. So enterprise learning is specifically
charged with the duty of providing graduates “who can hit the streets running”.
The fourth is even less precise but is usually couched in terms of personal achievement. Small
business is unique in its ability to combine an individual’s skills and aspirations. Even the
Marxist, Warren (1980), recognised that capitalism’s greatest achievement has been to release
individual’s creativity. Furthermore Schumacher’s classic (1973) saw small business as the
nostrum for the alienation of the modern world. At the level of the individual
entrepreneurship is seen as overcoming the barriers and obstacles of class, race and gender.(
Aldrich et al 1986, Stanworth and Curran 1973, Waldinger et al 1990, Hyrsky and Ali 1996).
Entrepreneurship is also viewed as a means of satisfying an individual’s “inner needs”;
notions of satisfaction, fulfilment and achievement echo throughout the literature, (Scott and
4
Anderson 1994). Rosa, (1992) adds that within this view the relationship to business is not
paramount.
It will be evident that these different constituencies of demand for enterprise education
present very different, even incompatible, claims for what should be the outcome of this
education. We follow Gibb’s point that the overriding aim of enterprise education is to
develop enterprising behaviours, skills and attributes and by this means also enhance our
student’s insight into, as well as knowledge of, any particular phenomenon studied (Gibb,
1993). However it has been argued that there has been more faith than strategic reasoning in
the development and implementation of enterprise and entrepreneurial education and training
in the UK during the 1980s, (Rosa, 1992). At one level we see new businesses, at another
creative individuals who think for themselves. At yet another level, we note the need to see
more new high growth firms. This is a heady curriculum to develop!s in career structures; the
end of jobs for life.
The third source of demand for entrepreneurial education is business itself. Ian Grant, the
Managing Director of Aberdeen Enterprise Trust (1993) puts this plainly, “It is important that
universities search for excellence, but at times the university may omit to provide an
understanding of basic commercial issues..... it is important for graduates to leave being
“street
Issues in Teaching the Art and Science of Entrepreneurship
This range of issues raises questions about what “entrepreneurship” comprises and
how, and if, it can be taught within the conventional pedagogies. The demands outlined above
appear to range from a science of business management to the necessarily imprecise notions
of creativity; this art of entrepreneurship. Clearly entrepreneurship has to be different, or at
least more than managerialism; there is something distinct which reaches beyond the effective
allocation of resources. Yet we must also recognise that successful business creation also
demands managerial competencies. Assuming that we acknowledge that entrepreneurship is
more than the basic and pragmatic skills to simply slot into a new business, the difference
seems to lie in the novelty, the creation of new ventures, either as new businesses or as new
ventures within existing organisations. We may characterise this as opportunity perception,
developing these ideas into viable opportunities and pulling together resources to make these
real. Nonetheless this creative process is not independent of managerial knowledge.
Knowledge, and experience, is the basis for assessing what is possible, what is realistic and
what is achievable.
Moving beyond the mere description of the entrepreneurial process to an analytic level
has long been problematic. Gartner (1985) found over eighty definitions of entrerpeneurship
but a pragmatic view suggests that entrepreneurship is, “the creation and extraction of value
from an environment”, Anderson (1995). Given this view we can see the emergence of the
twin entrepreneurial themes; of art- the creation, and of science- the management to
effectively extract value. The literature, albeit indirectly, appears to support this perspective.
The Science
The science of small business management, or indeed management, is well established
and needs little comment. In the “ideal typification” teaching involves explaining the
functions of management, the presentation of techniques and models of good practice, and
evaluating student’s ability to apply this knowledge to a historic or a make-believe situation.
Mintzberg, (1994) for example considers that in many MBA programmes the emphasis is on
teaching about concepts and the administration of functional areas. French and Grey, (1996)
whilst acknowledging changes, note that the idea of management education as functional to
management is predicated on a model of professional training in which there exists a body of
5
knowledge which is understood to be central to effective practice. They note that it may be
common ground to say that management is concerned with achieving organisational aims.
Nonetheless, as George (1968), summarises the science of management is rooted in the ideas
of F.W. Taylor’s Scientific Management. Locke 1993:31 also argues that the classic
American Management was based upon what can be interpreted as Taylorist principles of
Scientific Management. This system which although arguably well suited for large
hierarchical organisations, is very poorly suited for the fast moving, innovative sphere of
entrerpeneurship. Consequently as George (1968) claims, Taylor’s principles of scientific
management were about standardisation, finding the one best way. Casson (1995:83) puts this
uncompromising view into an entrepreneurial perspective, “But it is the perception, as well as
the reality of problems which is important. Shackle, ( 1979) makes a similar point about the
subjectivity of problems and the limitations of a narrow view.
The traditional management education is positivistic, as Outhwaite (1987) puts it,
“Positive knowledge, so called to distinguish it from the theological and metaphysical
conceptions of the world from which it emerged, yields a methodologically unified and
hierarchical conception of science, based on causal laws of phenomena, derived from
observation.” Yet as J ohannison (1992) notes entrepreneurship is anti-positivistic and that
entrepreneurial knowledge may be soft and personal. Thus we see the limitations of the
science of management education in dealing with the unknowability of entrepreneurship. As
Casson (1995:80) puts it, “J udgmental decisions are decisions for which no obvious correct
procedure sts: a judgmental decision cannot be made simply by plugging available numbers
into a specific formula and acting on the basis of the number which comes out”.
Yet even within this paradigm there are grey areas. Englwall, (1982) claims that
management education is torn between the liberal and the utilitarian concepts and hence
claims advantages in de-coupling management education and management practice. He sees
this as a reflection of a need for less skills and more analysis. French and Grey, (1996) note
that conventional management education, that is functional training as one would expect in an
MBA, is becoming more professionalised. However the question whether management can be
taught seems to them to be almost as important. They ask, (1996:7) whether knowledge is an
end, as Cicero claims, or if knowledge is a means, as J ohn Locke insisted. Similarly Ronstadt
(1990:80), claims, “Entrepreneurship education should not be viewed as some mechanistic or
technocratic process but as a holistic and integrative process”. Later he notes, (1990:92) that
entrepreneurship is not the sum of the functional subdivisions of modern business education.
Robert Locke (1996) is particularly critical of what Winston Churchill called, “clear cut,
logical, mass production style of though”, taught by American style business schools.
Solomon and Fernald 1991 point out that in the USA, the business courses of many colleges
and universities were criticised because of their lack of creativity and individual thinking. For
example, Wojhan 1986, claims that “tools”, rather than practical advice, and “analytic smarts”
rather than “street smarts” were the outcome of many of these courses.
The Art
The entrepreneurial process is recognisably different from managerialism; in essence it
is about creating something which did not exist before. The process involves, as discussed
earlier, “the extraction of value from the environment”, and usually in a novel form. Hence it
is about using resources in a different, a Schumpertian, way. It is a process of becoming, not
the stasis of being. Consequently it cannot be predictable; its generic form is unstructureable;
it is unknowable and hence unpredictable. The principal dilemma then is that enterprise is
idiosyncratic, and therefore closer to an art than a science.
Consider Nisbet’s comments, (1976:111) on rationality, "the imposition of end-means
criteria not only upon thought but upon art, science ...it implies the exclusion from thought or
act of all that is purely traditional, charismatic or ritualistic." He is clearly dissatisfied with
this "scientism", he derides it, as science with the spirit of discovery and creation left out. He
concludes 1976:76 that "We live in a world of ideas." So entrepreneurial creation appears to
6
share a great deal with artistic production and might well be thought of as an economic art
form. Timmons (1994:329) suggests that entrepreneurial resources are like the paint and
brush to the artist, they remain inert until the creative flair engages with the canvas. Yet as
Chia (1996) puts it, the cultivation of entrepreneurial imagination is the single most important
contribution of Universities and Business Schools.
At the most extreme version of this argument even dreams may be a raw material of
enterprise, very often what has to created entrepreneurially presents a formidable task, yet
the freedom of fantasy allows gratifying impressions to develop in comfort and safety.
Dreaming permits a freedom to roam over possibilities and potentials without cost.
Importantly it allows the first heady fruits of success to be savoured in a risk free
environment. Moreover, because the end results can be envisaged as a stream of benefits,
which may play down difficulties, dreams can provide a major impetus to realise these
fancies. The surreal world of dreams is irrational, illogical and one without limit, where
everything is possible. Dreams may be a precursor to enterprise. Since fantasy is not based
on economic rationality the unfolding enterprise may also be rooted in grounds other than
conventional rationality. The entrepreneurial dream may, for instance, originate in
concerns for quality of life, or of self determination, aspects which are distanced from the
cash nexus. Accordingly fantasies may shape the purpose and objectives of the new
business. The enterprise may be a means to achieving a fantasised end.
Another incongruity which arises in these conjectures on the metaphysics of
entrepreneurship education is the similarity in the creative activities of the artist and the
entrepreneur. To borrow Baudelaire's (1981:435) formulation, the artist is someone who
can concentrate his vision on ordinary subjects, understand there fleeting qualities, and yet
extract from the passing moment. Or as Harvey quotes Bradbury and McFarlane
(1976:27), "it is the one art that responds to the scenario of our chaos." Harvey again,
(1989:22), "The struggle to produce a work of art, a once and for all creation that could
find a unique place in the market, had to be an individual effort forged under competitive
circumstances." Each of these comments could be describing entrepreneurship rather than
art. This seems to reflect Sexton's (1985) concerns in, "The Art and Science of
Entrepreneurship". Nisbet (1976:95), in his explanation of sociology as an art form, claims
that "painters and sculptors were engaged in endless effort to capture flux, motion and
energy." He calls this the principle of vix genetrix, a notion of motion and constant
continuous development. Yet this description so vividly describes the entrepreneurial
process.
Koestler 1980:364 draws attention to the links between conceptualisation and
creation. He provides some evidence of the range of creative forms. "In 1945 J aques
Hadamard's famous enquiry amongst American mathematicians produced the striking
conclusion that nearly all of them tackled their problems neither in verbal terms or
algebraic symbols, but relied on visual imagery of a vague and hazy nature." He continues,
quoting Carlyle "the infinite is made to blend with the finite, to stand visible, as it were
attainable here." This latter expression seems to capture the essence of enterprise, although
Koestler's remarks are directed to art.
Ronstadt (1990), raises the issue of American higher education in the liberal arts and
claims that rather than promoting an entrepreneurial perspective, business is marginalised.
Ray (1990), takes up this point but claims that, (1990:80) “an education in the liberal arts may
be viewed as a metaphor for entrepreneurship. The humanities suggest that that the
entrepreneur is an artist”
If our version of the art of enterprise is accurate, the conventional mechanistic
“science” outlined earlier provides a very poor basis for entrepreneurial action. Therefore we
must question whether we can teach entrepreneurship, or if we can only provide skills and
knowledge to enable and empower an emergent business acumen of our students.
The analysis and synthesis of entrepreneurial art and science
7
Gibb (1996:311), makes the telling point that few business schools are in a strong
position to meet the challenges of teaching an entrepreneurial holistic management approach.
We take the view that the rationality of entrepreneurship is action, the physical creation of a
new business entity. The conventional role of universities is to provide a theoretical
understanding, a conceptual grasp of the phenomena, but we must also question the relevance
and value of an overtly theoretical approach to a subject which appears to deal almost
exclusively with doing. Furthermore the lack of business experience in academe, which is
typical of management lecturers, (Simon 1976, Macfarlane 1998) may exacerbate the
situation. This is particularly so in combination with lack of student experience might lead to
over reliance on theory, when what is needed is practice. Young (1997) usefully defines
entrepreneurial education as the structured formal conveyance of entrepreneurial knowledge.
Entrepreneurial knowledge is the concepts, skill and mentality individual business owners
use. Our point is that it may not be possible to acquire the skill, or indeed the mentality by
conventional pedagogic routes.
Raising awareness of entrepreneurship is relatively straightforward and can be achieved
through teaching examples, case studies and by bringing entrepreneurs into the class.
Similarly teaching entrepreneurial theory and good management skills conforms to academic
norms. However there are pedagogic difficulties in teaching the practice of enterprise. In part
this is because of the variability within enterprises, (Freel 1998), in part because
entrepreneurship is process rather than stasis. Hence we can only glimpse a snapshot of the
movie. Furthermore there is also a recognition that much research needs to be carried out into
what makes an entrepreneur and how these characteristics may best be imparted (Gorman,
Hanlon and King, 1997).
One area Robinson and Haynes wish to see addressed is (1991:51), “tying academic
learning to the real world”, linking pedagogical theories to actual business methods. They
propose that mentoring may be one such avenue. However before we become to entangled in
pure experience alone we would do well to recall, as Locke (1993), points out, that the
business educational paradigm for the 19th century was the British model of learning by
doing. This model, one of training, rather than education for a life role, had the effect of
limiting economic development. Nelson (1993:174) makes a similar point to Locke . He cites
J ohn Davidson Rockefeller’s (1855) success to experiential learning but contrasts this to
Rockerfeller’s son J ohn D.jnr. success which he attributes to training for management, the
mastery of theory as well as technique. From a British perspective Allan Gibb 1993:18 notes
that the small firm itself is a learning organisation and that the learning environment is
“learning by doing”. More formal knowledge is therefore “adapted” as appropriate for
business needs. Hence the model proposed emphasises self-discovery, what he calls an
“enterprise” style of learning, in opposition to a more formal didactic approach.
Moreover the integration of these elements is difficult. It is not enough to simply use
case studies or “listen to very successful entrepreneurs recount how they had launched their
ventures” (Fiet, 1998). We need to teach students theory to support their practical learning
experience. We need to provide a conceptual background which allows students to
understand and to engage with the real business world. Fiet proposes, that if we are to
improve the substance of what we teach to students studying entrepreneurship, we need to 1)
pursue theory-driven research agendas and be actively seen to do so and 2) expose students to
theoretical explanations of why some entrepreneurs succeed and others fail.
Much more of our research should be theory-driven rather than descriptive and we should
integrate research findings and theory is a way that can be understood and applied by students
(Fiet, 1998). Fiet claims we become irrelevant as teachers, when we fail to apply theory as a
tool to answer student questions. Thus research and teaching should be theory-driven rather
than descriptive and we should integrate research findings and theory in a way that can be
understood and applied by students (Fiet, 1998).
8
Much of this argument is not new, Porter and McKibben (1988) drew attention to this
question of academic drift from the real business world,. Furthermore the Carnegie
Foundation, (1990) drew attention to the need to synthesise business practice and teaching.
Indeed the conclusion of this study was that we should ensure that students continue to learn
beyond the walls of academe, (Gibb 1996). Furthermore research indicates considerable
consensus that entrepreneurship can be taught and that teaching methods can be enhanced
through active participation (Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997).
Thus in summary we see the science of conventional business education as a
fundamental; conceptual development as the promotion of business understanding; theory as
producing a critical awareness; and experience, albeit second hand and vicarious, as being the
steel to whet and hone the rougher edges of student’s knowledge. The emerging picture of the
mandate for teaching entrepreneurship is one of academic knowledge, both conceptual and
analytic, as providing a sound platform. It is from this platform that we launch our students
into the turbulent and untidy world of small business experience. Hynes may claim that
understanding is derived from personal experience, and learning is obtained through doing
(Hynes, 1998). But Rosa’s point that although entrepreneurs must have “enterprising”
attitudes to want to start the businesses in the first place, they must also possess the
“enterprising” attitudes and competencies to enable the person to thrive in business once the
firm has got off the ground (Rosa, 1992) seems very pertinent. The “rite de passage” of
experiencing the real small business world is not enough, in itself, to produce the outcomes
we seek. However it is within this experiential element that we need to loosen our academic
apron strings to let our students imagination soar. Hence it is the combination of the science
of business management knowledge, the dirty-handed world of business experience and the
inspirations of our students which will the develop the enterprising student. It was Socrates
who described himself as a midwife, helping people to give birth to their ideas , (Gosling
1996). We would do well to emulate him.
It seems then what we can hope to teach is a skill set, based on a platform of conceptual
knowledge. Kourilsky and Carlson, (1997:194) consider that specific entrepreneurial
programmes, (in contrast to more general business education), should consist of three
progressive elements;
1. Entrepreneurial awareness, this is characterised as the introduction of basic entrepreneurial
concepts and skills and introduces awareness of entrepreneurship as a career option.
2. Entrepreneurial readiness, is about promoting comprehension and the application of
concepts and skills and develops recognition of personal venture opportunities.
3. Entrepreneurial application, which applies advanced skills to the planning and preparation
for implementing a personal business venture.
The components of the ideal structure include the following: a knowledge base supporting
a focus on attributes and skills as well as tasks, an element of concrete experience derived
from active participation through projects and the like, and content directed to stage of
venture development and emphasising functional integration. Thus following Hannon’s
point, (1998) that entrepreneurial learning processes should be embedded in an adaptive
environment.
What we do at Aberdeen
Aberdeen University is an old traditional university, with the implications of the
associated cultural ramifications. For example, we do not have a Business School but instead
a department of Management Studies. There is a “hesitancy” about the value associated with
teaching a vocational subject. (However this is in spite of teaching medicine, law and divinity
for centuries!) We have had to work hard to convince our colleagues, particularly outside our
own faculty of the value and appropriateness of our courses. This said many other faculties
9
now share our enthusiasms. We teach entrepreneurship to Bio-medic PhDs; Pharmacologists;
Environmental Scientists and Zoologists. Next year we are to have final year medicine
students for a four week block of enterprise.
We realise the limitations of our own experience, although two of our lectures run
small businesses. We attempt to bridge this gap between theory and entrepreneurial practice
using a number of techniques. To compensate we capitalise on rich external sources of
entrepreneurial experience. We have many visiting entrepreneurs; we advise students on
research in small business and encourage students to engage with small business and
entrepreneurs at every opportunity. At the same time we attempt to build theory into every
learning activity as a critical framework, aiming to develop the students understanding of
entrepreneurship.
The Centre for Entrepreneurship, part of the Department of Management Studies,
primarily offer courses in entrepreneurship to students at both undergraduate and postgraduate
level. Within their degree students can opt to do the following courses:
• Enterprise Creation 1 and 2 - We have a portfolio of Scottish and international
entrepreneurial case studies and other teaching materials. Through analysis of these cases
and associated exercises students learn, individually and in groups, to integrate knowledge
and skills required to identify, plan and seize a business opportunity. The development of
oral and written communication skills through preparation and presentation of project and
business plans is also a central focus of these courses. Entrepreneurs are invited into the
classroom to share their experiences and students are also directed towards a resource
room to investigate companies, successful small business development and entrepreneurial
opportunities. The key mechanism of learning is the development of a viable business
plan. Importantly it is the process of producing the plan, using the acquired knowledge,
which is central to these courses.
• Conceptual Approaches to Enterprise - The course provides students with the
background theory necessary for understanding the field of entrepreneurship. It looks at a
variety of theories of entrerpeneurship: sociological, cultural, anthropological, economic,
political and psychological. Students learn, discuss and critically evaluate these theories.
One focus is to question the feasibility of a single theory to account for and to explain
entrerpeneurship. The purpose of this course is to increase the awareness of the students to
entrepreneurship but also to raise their critical analysis skills. Students should be able to
recognise, and explain patterns of entrepreneurship and have some understanding of why
these have arisen.
• Business Development - This course involves analysing the problems of growing
businesses and the issues which the entrepreneur is likely to encounter. Case studies,
specially researched in the Scottish context are used. Most of these cases focus upon the
recent experience of Scottish companies in a range of sectors. Students are invited to
compare and contrast these case studies. Entrepreneurs, often those who feature in the
cases, are also invited into the class room to share their experiences. This provides the
student with the opportunity to question them directly and to use the knowledge they have
acquired directly and in a critical and analytic manner.
• Smaller Business - At the MBA level we also teach an elective whose focus is rather
different, an appreciation of SME’s. This a post experience course so that the students who
choose to do this elective have considerable commercial experience, although not always
in small business. We did not expect many potential entrepreneurs to select this as an
elective whose objective was to make students aware that SMEs are different from larger
organisations. However we were delighted that some of our group had their own business
and many were considering at as a career option. Their experiences provided an excellent
framework for the critical analysis of cases and theory.
10
• Enterprise for Scientists - This is new course which is intended for post graduates who
have no management background. The ethos is to raise entrepreneurial awareness, to
encourage them to think about an entrepreneurial career. Interestingly this course has
become quite popular despite the initial reluctance and misgivings of many of the students.
In particular the PhD students wondered about its relevance to their careers but after the
delivery of the course they reported satisfaction and saw the value.
We are also involved in a number of other activities which help to promote
entrepreneurship to both our student population and the outside business community.
These include:
• Mentoring - the mentoring programme which has been established has two related
aspects. The first role is to provide academic support by an identified experienced
academic. The second role, which we see as being innovative, is to complement the
conventional academic learning with the business experience of our entrepreneurial
mentors (for a fuller account of mentoring at the University of Aberdeen see Anderson,
Kirkwood and J ack (1998)). Thus our entrepreneurial mentors provide real life experience
to complement, ( or indeed to contradict!) our theory.
• Steering committee - the entrepreneurship programmes offered have been developed and
designed in conjunction with a steering committee which consists of academics and
members of the local business community. This body is involved with many aspects of
what we offer and encourage the development of entrepreneurship from a commercial
perspective.
• “Talking heads” - we invite members of the local business community to talk to our
students, staff from the local enterprise companies and encourage them to engage in debate
about entrepreneurship. Again this provides “experience” of live situations, and sometimes
it also acts to provide inspirational role models.
• We hold an entrepreneurship dinner once a year. This provides a relaxed forum for
discussion and the exchange of ideas. Our guests, or rather our sponsor’s guests, since they
pay for the dinner, include enterprise and non enterprise students, our mentors, the steering
committee and the management faculty.
• Presentations - students are invited to present their work throughout all the courses
offered by the Centre for Entrepreneurship. Initially this is to staff, but the best groups
present to commercial judges in competition for a number of prizes.
Problems
Some of the we have encountered are:
• There is a lack of good business ideas and a tendency for low skill, low barrier to entry
ideas to be proposed. This suggests that we have to find some way to make our students
think beyond the more obvious ideas.
• Additionally, we have found that there is a vast amount of work required to generate a
viable business plan. However, if the students are motivated and enthused they seem to
accept this happily.
• Another issue is that we have few ways of testing the effectiveness and efficiency of what
we teach. We can measure entrepreneurial awareness and test student’s knowledge and
find out about their satisfaction with our courses. However we have not yet been able to
establish the long term outcomes.
• It can also be difficult to realistically evaluate business plans. We have rely on the
surrogate academia evaluation, although our increasing experience is proving helpful.
• Within academia and the old university system we have found it difficult to persuade
people about the value of vocational courses, particularly since we teach the study of
11
management and not business. However, other faculties have invited us to teach their
students, particularly those who are building and developing a job focus into their courses.
• The matching process of mentors and students can be problematic. Sometimes we find that
students are intimidated by the high profile of their mentor and fail to make full use of the
experience. In other occasions we have found students who claim to be too busy to make
sufficient contact with their mentor. We recently conducted a study and have put in place
plans to help correct these difficulties.
Successes
The entrepreneurship courses have been experiencing growing numbers which must be
a measure of success. We are reaching science and medical students and being invited to
teach courses to other disciplines. Student satisfaction with the courses taught is high.
However we feel that we must continue to monitor the success of these courses, especially the
long term benefits for students. Our steering committee seem satisfied with progress and we
are never short of dinner guests!
References:
Aldrich, H., Zimmer, C., 1986, “Entrepreneurship through Social Networks”, in Sexton, D.L.,
Smilor, R.W., eds., “The Art and Science of Entrerpeneurship”, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA
Anderson A.R., Kirkwood, S. J ack, S.L., 1998, “Teaching Entrepreneurship: a mentoring
experience”, a paper presented at the Babson Conference, Belgium
Anderson, A.R. 1995, “Enterprise in Arcadia” unpublished PhD thesis, University of Stirling,
Stirling
Baudelaire., C., 1981, “Selected writings on Art and Artists”, London
Baumol, W.J ., 1983, “Towards Operational Models of Entrepreneurship”, in Ronen, J . Ed.,
“Entrepreneurship”, Lexington Books, Lexington
Birch, D.L., 1979 , “The job generation process”, MIT study on neighbourhood and regional
change, MIT, Boston
Braverman H.,1974 “Labor and Monopoly Capitalism” New York
Bradbury, M., McFarlane, J ., 1976, “Modernism, 1890-1930”, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Burrows, R., 1991, “A Sociological Anatomy of the Petty Bourgeoise”, Burrows, R Curran, J .,
eds.,”Deciphering the Enterprise Culture”, Routledge, London
Cannon, T., 1991, “Enterprise:Creation, development and Growth”, Butterworth-Heinneman,
Oxford
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, (1990), “Scholarship reconsidered-
Priorities of the Professoriate”, Washington
Carr P., 1997 “The Cultural Production of Enterprise: Understanding Selectivity as Cultural
Policy” Paper presented to the 2nd Irish Entrerpeneurship Research Conference, Belfast
Casson M., 1995, “ Entrepreneurship and Business Culture: Studies in the Economics
of Trust” vol 1. Edward Elgar, Aldershot
Chia, R., 1996 “ Teaching Paradigm Shifting in Management Education: University Business
Schools and the Entrepreneurial Imagination”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 33, no.
4, p409-428
Curran, J ., Burrows, R., 1987, “The Social Analysis of Small Business: Some Emerging
Themes”, In Goffe and Scase, eds.
12
Curran J ., 1986, “Bolton 15 years on: A Review and Analysis of Small Business Research in
Britain 1971-1986”, Small Business Research Trust, London
Drucker, P., 1985, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” Butterworth Heineman, Oxford
Eagleton T., 1991, “Ideology” Verso, London
Engelgwall L., 1982, “Mercury meets Minerva”, Pergammon Press, Oxford
Fitzgerald R., 1993 “Industrial Training and Mangement Education in Britain: A Missing
Dimension” in “Education and Training in the Development of Modern Corporations” eds.
Kawabe N., Daito N, University of Tokio Press, Tokio
Freel, M. S., “Policy, prediction and growth: Picking winners?”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, vol 5, no.1,p.19-32.
Gallup Organisation And National Center For Research In Economic Education, 1994,
“Entrepreneurship and Small business in the United States: A Survey Report on the Views
of the General Public, High School Students, and Small Business Owners and Managers”,
Kansas City, MO
George C.S., 1968 “The History of Mangement Thought” Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs,
N.J .
Gibb A.A., 1996, “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management: Can we afford to
neglect them in the Twenty-first century Business School”, British Academy of
Management J ournal, p309-321
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., King, W.,1997, “Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship
Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-
year Literature Review”, International Small Business J ournal, Vol. 15, No. 3, p56 (22).
Goss., D., 1991, “Small Business and Society”, Routledge, London
Hannon P.D., 1998, “Who are the real educators and learners? – Re-thinking the role of
University Business Schools in entrepreneurial approaches to small firmlearning and
development” paper to be presented at the Enterprise and Learning Conference, University
of Aberdeen, September
Harvey, D., 1989, “ The Condition of Post-modernity” Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Hynes, B., 1996, “Entrepreneurship Education and Training - Introducing Entrepreneurship
into Non-Business Disciplines.”, J ournal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20, No. 8,
p10(8)
Hyrsky, K., Ali, A.A.,1996, “The Rocky Road of Immigrant and Ethnic Business in Finland”.
Paper presented at the 2nd Irish Entrepreneurship Conference, Belfast, November.
J ohannison, B., 1987, “Entreprenurship in a Corporatist State: The Case of Sweden” In Goffe
R., Scase, R., eds, “ Entrepreneurship in Europe”, Croom Helm, London
J ohannison, B., 1992, “ In Search of a Methodology for Entrepreneurship research”,
unpublished draft circulated at RENT VII, November.
J ohnston, D., Pere-Verge, L., 1993 “Attitudes towards graduate employment in the SME
sector”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, no 5, p 85-97
Katz J . 1991 “The Institution and Infrastructure of Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Spring 1991 p85-102
Keats R., Abercrombie N., (1991) eds. “Enterprise Culture” Routledge, London
Koestler, A., 1964, “ The Act of Creation”, Hutchinson, London
Livesay, H.H., 1982, “Entrepreneurial History” in Kent et al, eds.,
13
Locke R.R., 1993, “Higher Education and Management: Their Relational Changes in the
20th Century”, in “Education and Training in the Development of Modern Corporations”
eds. Kawabe N., Daito N, University of Tokio Press, Tokio
Mason C., 1998 “Teaching Entrepreneurship toUndergraduates: A New Rationale” a paper to
be presented at the Conference on Enterprise and Learning, September, University of
Aberdeen, Aberdeen
McDougall, M., Beattie, R.S.,1997, “ Peer Mentoring At Work: the Nature and Outcomes of
Non-hierarchical Developmental Relationships”, Management Learning, Vol. 28, No. 4,
pp423-437.
Macfarlane B., 1998, “Refugees, Nomads and Tourists: An Anatomy of Business and
Management lecturers in Higher Education”, J ournal of European Business Education,
vol.7 No. 2 May, p37-44
Mintzberg H., 1994, “Re-engineering the Business School” in M.L. International Newsletter,
1, J une, p 24-25
Nelson D 1993, “ The Transformation of American Business Education” in “Education and
Training in the Development of Modern Corporations” eds. Kawabe N., Daito N,
University of Tokio Press, Tokio
Nisber, R., 1966, 1970, “ The Sociological tradition”, Heineman, London
Pietrasinski, Z., 1969, “The Art of Learning”. Warsaw, Pergamon Press
Porter L.W., McKibben L.E., (1988) “Management Education and Development: Drift or
Thrust into the 21st century”, Mcgraw Hill, New York
Robinson P. Haynes M.,1991 “Entrepreneurship Education in America’s Major Universitites”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice” Spring 1991 p41-67
Ronstadt R., 1990, “Contributing Editor’s Feature” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”
Winter 1990 p79
Rosa, P.,1992, “Entrepreneurial Training in the UK: Past Confusion and Future Promise”
Conference Paper Series 81/92, University of Stirling, Stirling
Roure, J ., 1997, “ Ten Myths about Entrepreneurs”, in Birley, S., Muzyka D. F., “Mastering
Enterprise” FT Pitman Publishing, London
Ryle G 1963 “The Concept of th Mind” Penguin Harmondsworth
Scott, M.G., Anderson, A.R., 1994, "Entreprenology: The Study of the Creation and
Extraction of Value from an Environment", A paper presented at the 14th Babson
Entrepreneurial Conference at Wellesley MA
Schumacher, A., 1973, “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered”, , Bland and
Briggs, London
Shackle G.S.L., 1979 “Imagination and the Nature of Choice” Edinburgh University Press
Edinburgh
Simon H.A., 1976, “Administrative Behaviour” Collier-Macmillan, New York
Solomon G.T. Fernald W., 1991, “Trends in Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship Education inthe United States” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”
Spring 1991 p25-39
Stanworth, J ., Curran, J .,1973, “Management Motivation in the Smaller Business”, London,
Gower Press.
Storey, D.J ., 1994, “Understanding the Small Business Sector”, International Thomson
Business Press, London
14
Tan, W.L., Tan, L.K., Tan, W.H., Wong, S.C., 1995, “Entrepreneurial Spirit amongst tertiary
students in Singapore”, J ournal of Enterprise Culture, vol. 3, no.2, pp211-227
Timmons, J .A.,1994, “New Venture Creation” Fourth Edition Irwin, Illinois
Vesper, K.H., McMullan, W.E., Ray, D.M., 1989,. “Entrepreneurship Education: More Than
J ust an Adjustment to Management Education.” International Small Business J ournal, Vol.
8, No. 1, PP61-65.
Waldinger, R., Aldrich, H., Ward, R., 1990, (eds.), “Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Immigrant
Business in Industrial Societies”. London, Sage Publications
Warren, D., 1980, “Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism”, New Left Books, London
Weihe H.J ., Reiche F., 1993, reprinted 1997, “Entrepreneurship Interest among business
students: Results of an international survey” in Klandt, H., ed., “Entrepreneurship and
Business Development”, Avebury, Hants.
Wojhan E., 1986, “Class acts”, INC , p126-132
Young J .E., 1997, “Entrerpeneurship Education and Learning for University Students and
Practising Entrepreneurs” in “Entrepreneurship 2000 eds. Sexton D.L., Smilor R.W.,
Upstart Publishing, Chicago
doc_794424595.pdf
During on this detailed criteria clarify international dimensions of teaching entrepreneurship.
OpenAIR@RGU
The Open Access Institutional Repository
at Robert Gordon University
http://openair.rgu.ac.uk
This is an author produced version of a paper published in
International Dimensions of Teaching Entrepreneurship.
This version may not include final proof corrections and does not include
published layout or pagination.
Citation Details
Citation for the version of the work held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’:
ANDERSON, A. R. and JACK, S. L., 1999. Teaching the
entrepreneurial art. Available from OpenAI R@RGU. [online].
Available from:http://openair.rgu.ac.uk
Citation for the publisher’s version:
ANDERSON, A. R. and JACK, S. L., 1999. Teaching the
entrepreneurial art. In: D. S. EVANS, ed. International Dimensions
of Teaching Entrepreneurship. Paris: ESCEM. pp. 84 – 105.
Copyright
Items in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’, Robert Gordon University Open Access Institutional Repository,
are protected by copyright and intellectual property law. If you believe that any material
held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’ infringes copyright, please contact [email protected] with
details. The item will be removed from the repository while the claim is investigated.
1
Teaching the Entrepreneurial Art
Alistair R. Anderson and Sarah L. Jack
???????????
"I would suggest that successful entrepreneurship is an art form as much as, or perhaps more
than, it is an economic activity, and as such it is as difficult as any other artistic activity to
explain in terms of original method or environmental influence" .
Livesay 1982:13
???????????
ntrepreneurship is increasingly recognised as being vital to the regeneration and
development of our economies. With the advent of the so-called “Enterprise
Culture” (Keats and Abercrombie 1991), there has been widespread acceptance
that entrepreneurship is the engine that drives the economy of most nations
(Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997). Entrepreneurship is perceived to bring benefits at both
the macro level of economic development and also at the micro-level of personal achievement
and satisfaction, (Anderson, Kirkwood and J ack, 1998). The development, and indeed the
pervasion, of the Enterprise Culture has brought about academic interest in supporting this
new emphasis. This paper explores some of the issues surrounding enterprise in academia by
examining the teaching of entrepreneurship at Aberdeen University.
The paper first compares the rhetoric and the reality of entrepreneurship, it then moves
to consider a conceptualisation of entrerpeneurship. Central to the argument is that
entrerpeneurship is important, but that its very nature means that it is idiosyncratic and
unpredictable. Teaching entrepreneurship thus becomes problematic, since it is both art and
science. The science, which is largely seen as small business management, can be taught
within the conventional pedagogy. However, the art, the very nub of entrepreneurship, of
creation and innovation, does not appear to be teachable. This aspect is inductive and in bold
contrast to the rational deduction of resource management. It is highly subjective and involves
perceptual leaps which may transcend a conventional economic rationality. This vital aspect
is caricatured by Schumpeter’s oxymoron, the Creative Destructor.
Accordingly as academics we cannot directly provide, or teach this skill, it is
fundamentally experiential. J erry Katz’ seminal article (1991), makes the point that there are,
most likely, skills which can be taught and some that cannot. However we can furnish our
students with the opportunity to observe the operation of this ability. The exposure to
practising entrepreneurs allows students to perceive, to question and to absorb the form of this
art. In turn we anticipate that students will be able to use their acquired management skills,
their theoretical and their conceptual awareness, ( all of which we can teach), to bear upon the
art as demonstrated by the entrepreneurs. We see our entrepreneurial teaching role as having
three elements. First the science of management, to provide a critical awareness of how
businesses work. Secondly to develop conceptual awareness through the academic literature
of the nature of enterprise and thirdly to provide a bridge to tap the rich experiences of real
and practical entrepreneurial action. This view reflects Ryle’s comment, (1963) about the
important difference between knowing that and knowing how; to this we wish to add knowing
why.
Although is a clear indication of considerable growth in entrepreneurship courses and
programs there is very little consistency in approach, (Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997).
E
2
There is also preliminary evidence that entrepreneurial attributes can be positively
influenced by educational programs and that many entrepreneurship programs and courses are
able to build awareness of entrepreneurship as a career option and to encourage favourable
attitudes toward entrepreneurship. Nonetheless, the case for teaching entrepreneurship might
be strengthened if it was clear what qualities make for success in business-and therefore what
should be taught and which pupils might benefit from lessons, (The Economist, 1998).
Education also can serve a preparatory function in relation to new venture initiation or
start-up, whereby the transfer of knowledge and the acquisition and development of relevant
skills would be expected to increase the self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) and effectiveness of the
potential entrepreneur. In addition, this preparatory role can be extended to include
preparation for small business management of existing owner/ managers, as well as potential
entrepreneurs. Educational process and structure also should be important variables for
inquiry. For instance, we might expect the entrepreneurial learning process to be enhanced
through the provision of role models, the expansion and strengthening of personal networks,
and through temporary apprenticeship placements.
The context of teaching entrerpeneurship within an old and long established academic
institution is also discussed in terms of the effects of the culture and attitudes. However the
focus of the paper is the third element, the links from academe to experience. It explains the
methods and techniques used at Aberdeen to bridge the gap of art and science and discusses
the successes and failures. As Baumol (1983:30) puts it “How can one analyse and teach acts
whose nature is not yet known and whose effectiveness relies to a considerable degree on the
difficulty others have in foreseeing them?”
The Demand for Entrepreneurship Education
The 1980s and 1990s have seen an unprecedented growth in the demand for enterprise
education which has been matched by a corresponding growth in the number of courses
offered by both academic institutions and by enterprise agencies of one sort or another,
(Curran 1986). We wish to argue that this development is a consequence is a result of a
variety of inter-related changes in the national and international economy. We identify four
sources of demand, but have become acutely aware of the potential conflict between these
areas. In part this is consequence of the woollyness of the entrepreneurial concept.
Entrepreneurship has become an omnibus word, an overloaded concept and one that carries a
variety of meanings which pundits pick and choose from at will. Its meaning ranges from
small business operation, through new venture creation to innovation and individualism. As a
heuristic the breadth of the concept allows it to be used in diverse rhetoric, explanation and
justification. (Anderson 1995). To borrow an expression of Terry Eagleton’s (1991), it has
become a text, woven from a tissue of conceptual strands.
The first source of demand we have identified is governmental. This is primarily
economic and driven by the shift towards a post fordist economy. Flexible specialisation;
corporate downsizing, business re-engineering couple with individualism to be seen as a
solution to the failures of the old collectivisms. This “new capitalism” is identified by the
Marxist, David Harvey (1989:174), as Schumpertian innovation, the driving force of the post-
industrial paradigm. Fitzgerald 1993:77 notes the importance of management education for
national economic health. He points out that the Braverman (1974) deskilling thesis has never
be validated and that on the contrary, has been inverted by the need for enhanced skill levels.
Cannon (1991:149) suggests that enterprise provides the government with, “ a quick publicly
demonstrable, transaction based reaction, not a strategic response”. In contrast it has been
argued that enterprise culture develops naturally, (Hynes, 1996). However, given the
recognition of its importance we cannot solely rely on this passing on of knowledge, resulting
in the need to provide interventions to promote an entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial
knowledge.
3
J ob creation is major focus of this element. Timmons (1994) in the USA, Storey
(1994) and Roure (1997) all build, though critically, upon Birch’s (1979) seminal analysis
that new jobs in the economy are most likely to arise from entrepreneurial small firms.
Innovation is also important; J ohannison, (1987) notes that innovation cannot be planned by
large corporatist institutional processes. Drucker, (1985) reinforces the point that innovation
and entrepreneurship go hand-in-hand. All this reinforces Anderson et al’s, (1998) point that
the conditions of the 1990s mean that small business and entrepreneurship can no longer be
seen as marginal to modern economies. Hynes, (1996), puts this strongly, claiming an the
emergence of an SME economy, which leads to the need to prepare and educate potential
entrepreneurs to identify opportunities in the environment, and provide them with the
knowledge and skills necessary to capitalise and manage these opportunities. One outcome of
this concern in Scotland is the low level of the new business birth rate which has caused
political concern, (Scottish Enterprise 1995, 1996). This resulted in the implementation of the
Scottish Birth Rate Strategy, which aims to create an “Enterprise Culture” throughout
Scotland. A further interesting point is made by Rosa, (1992), that the process of enterprise
development and enterprise education is not so much the process of developing individual
businesses, but the process of developing the first, people who potentially own and actually
run these businesses and secondly the people who may work in these businesses.
We also detect a subsidiary thread to the political economy of entrepreneurship
education, the production of the friendly face of capitalism. The ideology of capitalism had
suffered in the post war years. The enterprise culture provided an opportunity to reassert its
value. Curran and Burrows, (1987:180) refer to the “remoralisation and recapitalisation of
capitalism”. Burrows, (1991) claims that this discourse has become, “one of the major
articulating principles of the age”. Goss, however, rather cynically notes, (1991), that the
Enterprise Culture’s affection for small business is rooted as much in the latter’s intangible
qualities as in precise measures of its effectiveness.
The second source of demand is that of the students. Young (1997), suggests that there are
two sets of reasons why students may want to study entrepreneurship. First, the student may
plan to start up their own business; secondly, they may wish to acquire knowledge which will
be helpful in their careers in larger organisations. Tan et al (1995), even propose that some
students may be attracted to enterprise learning as an insurance against an economic
downturn. Furthermore as Timmons (1994:vii) notes in the USA about one in eight is self
employed and the vast majority of the two million “millionaires” in the US have accumulated
their wealth through entrepreneurial acts of self employment. Thus it comes as little surprise
to find that the Gallup report, (1994), claims a demand for entrepreneurship education from
students. Some 85% of their respondents indicated a desire to learn more about
entrepreneurship. This is confirmed by the cross cultural study by Weihe and Reich, (1993).
Obviously this must be set in the context of the reported change wise”. In particular we see
being “street wise” as being aware of the non-linearity, Berger (1990), of entrepreneurial
learning. Another aspect is the need for a creative attitude to work, but its acquisition and
development is a quality rarely taught by professional educators (Pietrasinski, 1969). Time
and time again we hear the business community complain, perhaps with some justification,
that our graduates have no real business knowledge. So enterprise learning is specifically
charged with the duty of providing graduates “who can hit the streets running”.
The fourth is even less precise but is usually couched in terms of personal achievement. Small
business is unique in its ability to combine an individual’s skills and aspirations. Even the
Marxist, Warren (1980), recognised that capitalism’s greatest achievement has been to release
individual’s creativity. Furthermore Schumacher’s classic (1973) saw small business as the
nostrum for the alienation of the modern world. At the level of the individual
entrepreneurship is seen as overcoming the barriers and obstacles of class, race and gender.(
Aldrich et al 1986, Stanworth and Curran 1973, Waldinger et al 1990, Hyrsky and Ali 1996).
Entrepreneurship is also viewed as a means of satisfying an individual’s “inner needs”;
notions of satisfaction, fulfilment and achievement echo throughout the literature, (Scott and
4
Anderson 1994). Rosa, (1992) adds that within this view the relationship to business is not
paramount.
It will be evident that these different constituencies of demand for enterprise education
present very different, even incompatible, claims for what should be the outcome of this
education. We follow Gibb’s point that the overriding aim of enterprise education is to
develop enterprising behaviours, skills and attributes and by this means also enhance our
student’s insight into, as well as knowledge of, any particular phenomenon studied (Gibb,
1993). However it has been argued that there has been more faith than strategic reasoning in
the development and implementation of enterprise and entrepreneurial education and training
in the UK during the 1980s, (Rosa, 1992). At one level we see new businesses, at another
creative individuals who think for themselves. At yet another level, we note the need to see
more new high growth firms. This is a heady curriculum to develop!s in career structures; the
end of jobs for life.
The third source of demand for entrepreneurial education is business itself. Ian Grant, the
Managing Director of Aberdeen Enterprise Trust (1993) puts this plainly, “It is important that
universities search for excellence, but at times the university may omit to provide an
understanding of basic commercial issues..... it is important for graduates to leave being
“street
Issues in Teaching the Art and Science of Entrepreneurship
This range of issues raises questions about what “entrepreneurship” comprises and
how, and if, it can be taught within the conventional pedagogies. The demands outlined above
appear to range from a science of business management to the necessarily imprecise notions
of creativity; this art of entrepreneurship. Clearly entrepreneurship has to be different, or at
least more than managerialism; there is something distinct which reaches beyond the effective
allocation of resources. Yet we must also recognise that successful business creation also
demands managerial competencies. Assuming that we acknowledge that entrepreneurship is
more than the basic and pragmatic skills to simply slot into a new business, the difference
seems to lie in the novelty, the creation of new ventures, either as new businesses or as new
ventures within existing organisations. We may characterise this as opportunity perception,
developing these ideas into viable opportunities and pulling together resources to make these
real. Nonetheless this creative process is not independent of managerial knowledge.
Knowledge, and experience, is the basis for assessing what is possible, what is realistic and
what is achievable.
Moving beyond the mere description of the entrepreneurial process to an analytic level
has long been problematic. Gartner (1985) found over eighty definitions of entrerpeneurship
but a pragmatic view suggests that entrepreneurship is, “the creation and extraction of value
from an environment”, Anderson (1995). Given this view we can see the emergence of the
twin entrepreneurial themes; of art- the creation, and of science- the management to
effectively extract value. The literature, albeit indirectly, appears to support this perspective.
The Science
The science of small business management, or indeed management, is well established
and needs little comment. In the “ideal typification” teaching involves explaining the
functions of management, the presentation of techniques and models of good practice, and
evaluating student’s ability to apply this knowledge to a historic or a make-believe situation.
Mintzberg, (1994) for example considers that in many MBA programmes the emphasis is on
teaching about concepts and the administration of functional areas. French and Grey, (1996)
whilst acknowledging changes, note that the idea of management education as functional to
management is predicated on a model of professional training in which there exists a body of
5
knowledge which is understood to be central to effective practice. They note that it may be
common ground to say that management is concerned with achieving organisational aims.
Nonetheless, as George (1968), summarises the science of management is rooted in the ideas
of F.W. Taylor’s Scientific Management. Locke 1993:31 also argues that the classic
American Management was based upon what can be interpreted as Taylorist principles of
Scientific Management. This system which although arguably well suited for large
hierarchical organisations, is very poorly suited for the fast moving, innovative sphere of
entrerpeneurship. Consequently as George (1968) claims, Taylor’s principles of scientific
management were about standardisation, finding the one best way. Casson (1995:83) puts this
uncompromising view into an entrepreneurial perspective, “But it is the perception, as well as
the reality of problems which is important. Shackle, ( 1979) makes a similar point about the
subjectivity of problems and the limitations of a narrow view.
The traditional management education is positivistic, as Outhwaite (1987) puts it,
“Positive knowledge, so called to distinguish it from the theological and metaphysical
conceptions of the world from which it emerged, yields a methodologically unified and
hierarchical conception of science, based on causal laws of phenomena, derived from
observation.” Yet as J ohannison (1992) notes entrepreneurship is anti-positivistic and that
entrepreneurial knowledge may be soft and personal. Thus we see the limitations of the
science of management education in dealing with the unknowability of entrepreneurship. As
Casson (1995:80) puts it, “J udgmental decisions are decisions for which no obvious correct
procedure sts: a judgmental decision cannot be made simply by plugging available numbers
into a specific formula and acting on the basis of the number which comes out”.
Yet even within this paradigm there are grey areas. Englwall, (1982) claims that
management education is torn between the liberal and the utilitarian concepts and hence
claims advantages in de-coupling management education and management practice. He sees
this as a reflection of a need for less skills and more analysis. French and Grey, (1996) note
that conventional management education, that is functional training as one would expect in an
MBA, is becoming more professionalised. However the question whether management can be
taught seems to them to be almost as important. They ask, (1996:7) whether knowledge is an
end, as Cicero claims, or if knowledge is a means, as J ohn Locke insisted. Similarly Ronstadt
(1990:80), claims, “Entrepreneurship education should not be viewed as some mechanistic or
technocratic process but as a holistic and integrative process”. Later he notes, (1990:92) that
entrepreneurship is not the sum of the functional subdivisions of modern business education.
Robert Locke (1996) is particularly critical of what Winston Churchill called, “clear cut,
logical, mass production style of though”, taught by American style business schools.
Solomon and Fernald 1991 point out that in the USA, the business courses of many colleges
and universities were criticised because of their lack of creativity and individual thinking. For
example, Wojhan 1986, claims that “tools”, rather than practical advice, and “analytic smarts”
rather than “street smarts” were the outcome of many of these courses.
The Art
The entrepreneurial process is recognisably different from managerialism; in essence it
is about creating something which did not exist before. The process involves, as discussed
earlier, “the extraction of value from the environment”, and usually in a novel form. Hence it
is about using resources in a different, a Schumpertian, way. It is a process of becoming, not
the stasis of being. Consequently it cannot be predictable; its generic form is unstructureable;
it is unknowable and hence unpredictable. The principal dilemma then is that enterprise is
idiosyncratic, and therefore closer to an art than a science.
Consider Nisbet’s comments, (1976:111) on rationality, "the imposition of end-means
criteria not only upon thought but upon art, science ...it implies the exclusion from thought or
act of all that is purely traditional, charismatic or ritualistic." He is clearly dissatisfied with
this "scientism", he derides it, as science with the spirit of discovery and creation left out. He
concludes 1976:76 that "We live in a world of ideas." So entrepreneurial creation appears to
6
share a great deal with artistic production and might well be thought of as an economic art
form. Timmons (1994:329) suggests that entrepreneurial resources are like the paint and
brush to the artist, they remain inert until the creative flair engages with the canvas. Yet as
Chia (1996) puts it, the cultivation of entrepreneurial imagination is the single most important
contribution of Universities and Business Schools.
At the most extreme version of this argument even dreams may be a raw material of
enterprise, very often what has to created entrepreneurially presents a formidable task, yet
the freedom of fantasy allows gratifying impressions to develop in comfort and safety.
Dreaming permits a freedom to roam over possibilities and potentials without cost.
Importantly it allows the first heady fruits of success to be savoured in a risk free
environment. Moreover, because the end results can be envisaged as a stream of benefits,
which may play down difficulties, dreams can provide a major impetus to realise these
fancies. The surreal world of dreams is irrational, illogical and one without limit, where
everything is possible. Dreams may be a precursor to enterprise. Since fantasy is not based
on economic rationality the unfolding enterprise may also be rooted in grounds other than
conventional rationality. The entrepreneurial dream may, for instance, originate in
concerns for quality of life, or of self determination, aspects which are distanced from the
cash nexus. Accordingly fantasies may shape the purpose and objectives of the new
business. The enterprise may be a means to achieving a fantasised end.
Another incongruity which arises in these conjectures on the metaphysics of
entrepreneurship education is the similarity in the creative activities of the artist and the
entrepreneur. To borrow Baudelaire's (1981:435) formulation, the artist is someone who
can concentrate his vision on ordinary subjects, understand there fleeting qualities, and yet
extract from the passing moment. Or as Harvey quotes Bradbury and McFarlane
(1976:27), "it is the one art that responds to the scenario of our chaos." Harvey again,
(1989:22), "The struggle to produce a work of art, a once and for all creation that could
find a unique place in the market, had to be an individual effort forged under competitive
circumstances." Each of these comments could be describing entrepreneurship rather than
art. This seems to reflect Sexton's (1985) concerns in, "The Art and Science of
Entrepreneurship". Nisbet (1976:95), in his explanation of sociology as an art form, claims
that "painters and sculptors were engaged in endless effort to capture flux, motion and
energy." He calls this the principle of vix genetrix, a notion of motion and constant
continuous development. Yet this description so vividly describes the entrepreneurial
process.
Koestler 1980:364 draws attention to the links between conceptualisation and
creation. He provides some evidence of the range of creative forms. "In 1945 J aques
Hadamard's famous enquiry amongst American mathematicians produced the striking
conclusion that nearly all of them tackled their problems neither in verbal terms or
algebraic symbols, but relied on visual imagery of a vague and hazy nature." He continues,
quoting Carlyle "the infinite is made to blend with the finite, to stand visible, as it were
attainable here." This latter expression seems to capture the essence of enterprise, although
Koestler's remarks are directed to art.
Ronstadt (1990), raises the issue of American higher education in the liberal arts and
claims that rather than promoting an entrepreneurial perspective, business is marginalised.
Ray (1990), takes up this point but claims that, (1990:80) “an education in the liberal arts may
be viewed as a metaphor for entrepreneurship. The humanities suggest that that the
entrepreneur is an artist”
If our version of the art of enterprise is accurate, the conventional mechanistic
“science” outlined earlier provides a very poor basis for entrepreneurial action. Therefore we
must question whether we can teach entrepreneurship, or if we can only provide skills and
knowledge to enable and empower an emergent business acumen of our students.
The analysis and synthesis of entrepreneurial art and science
7
Gibb (1996:311), makes the telling point that few business schools are in a strong
position to meet the challenges of teaching an entrepreneurial holistic management approach.
We take the view that the rationality of entrepreneurship is action, the physical creation of a
new business entity. The conventional role of universities is to provide a theoretical
understanding, a conceptual grasp of the phenomena, but we must also question the relevance
and value of an overtly theoretical approach to a subject which appears to deal almost
exclusively with doing. Furthermore the lack of business experience in academe, which is
typical of management lecturers, (Simon 1976, Macfarlane 1998) may exacerbate the
situation. This is particularly so in combination with lack of student experience might lead to
over reliance on theory, when what is needed is practice. Young (1997) usefully defines
entrepreneurial education as the structured formal conveyance of entrepreneurial knowledge.
Entrepreneurial knowledge is the concepts, skill and mentality individual business owners
use. Our point is that it may not be possible to acquire the skill, or indeed the mentality by
conventional pedagogic routes.
Raising awareness of entrepreneurship is relatively straightforward and can be achieved
through teaching examples, case studies and by bringing entrepreneurs into the class.
Similarly teaching entrepreneurial theory and good management skills conforms to academic
norms. However there are pedagogic difficulties in teaching the practice of enterprise. In part
this is because of the variability within enterprises, (Freel 1998), in part because
entrepreneurship is process rather than stasis. Hence we can only glimpse a snapshot of the
movie. Furthermore there is also a recognition that much research needs to be carried out into
what makes an entrepreneur and how these characteristics may best be imparted (Gorman,
Hanlon and King, 1997).
One area Robinson and Haynes wish to see addressed is (1991:51), “tying academic
learning to the real world”, linking pedagogical theories to actual business methods. They
propose that mentoring may be one such avenue. However before we become to entangled in
pure experience alone we would do well to recall, as Locke (1993), points out, that the
business educational paradigm for the 19th century was the British model of learning by
doing. This model, one of training, rather than education for a life role, had the effect of
limiting economic development. Nelson (1993:174) makes a similar point to Locke . He cites
J ohn Davidson Rockefeller’s (1855) success to experiential learning but contrasts this to
Rockerfeller’s son J ohn D.jnr. success which he attributes to training for management, the
mastery of theory as well as technique. From a British perspective Allan Gibb 1993:18 notes
that the small firm itself is a learning organisation and that the learning environment is
“learning by doing”. More formal knowledge is therefore “adapted” as appropriate for
business needs. Hence the model proposed emphasises self-discovery, what he calls an
“enterprise” style of learning, in opposition to a more formal didactic approach.
Moreover the integration of these elements is difficult. It is not enough to simply use
case studies or “listen to very successful entrepreneurs recount how they had launched their
ventures” (Fiet, 1998). We need to teach students theory to support their practical learning
experience. We need to provide a conceptual background which allows students to
understand and to engage with the real business world. Fiet proposes, that if we are to
improve the substance of what we teach to students studying entrepreneurship, we need to 1)
pursue theory-driven research agendas and be actively seen to do so and 2) expose students to
theoretical explanations of why some entrepreneurs succeed and others fail.
Much more of our research should be theory-driven rather than descriptive and we should
integrate research findings and theory is a way that can be understood and applied by students
(Fiet, 1998). Fiet claims we become irrelevant as teachers, when we fail to apply theory as a
tool to answer student questions. Thus research and teaching should be theory-driven rather
than descriptive and we should integrate research findings and theory in a way that can be
understood and applied by students (Fiet, 1998).
8
Much of this argument is not new, Porter and McKibben (1988) drew attention to this
question of academic drift from the real business world,. Furthermore the Carnegie
Foundation, (1990) drew attention to the need to synthesise business practice and teaching.
Indeed the conclusion of this study was that we should ensure that students continue to learn
beyond the walls of academe, (Gibb 1996). Furthermore research indicates considerable
consensus that entrepreneurship can be taught and that teaching methods can be enhanced
through active participation (Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997).
Thus in summary we see the science of conventional business education as a
fundamental; conceptual development as the promotion of business understanding; theory as
producing a critical awareness; and experience, albeit second hand and vicarious, as being the
steel to whet and hone the rougher edges of student’s knowledge. The emerging picture of the
mandate for teaching entrepreneurship is one of academic knowledge, both conceptual and
analytic, as providing a sound platform. It is from this platform that we launch our students
into the turbulent and untidy world of small business experience. Hynes may claim that
understanding is derived from personal experience, and learning is obtained through doing
(Hynes, 1998). But Rosa’s point that although entrepreneurs must have “enterprising”
attitudes to want to start the businesses in the first place, they must also possess the
“enterprising” attitudes and competencies to enable the person to thrive in business once the
firm has got off the ground (Rosa, 1992) seems very pertinent. The “rite de passage” of
experiencing the real small business world is not enough, in itself, to produce the outcomes
we seek. However it is within this experiential element that we need to loosen our academic
apron strings to let our students imagination soar. Hence it is the combination of the science
of business management knowledge, the dirty-handed world of business experience and the
inspirations of our students which will the develop the enterprising student. It was Socrates
who described himself as a midwife, helping people to give birth to their ideas , (Gosling
1996). We would do well to emulate him.
It seems then what we can hope to teach is a skill set, based on a platform of conceptual
knowledge. Kourilsky and Carlson, (1997:194) consider that specific entrepreneurial
programmes, (in contrast to more general business education), should consist of three
progressive elements;
1. Entrepreneurial awareness, this is characterised as the introduction of basic entrepreneurial
concepts and skills and introduces awareness of entrepreneurship as a career option.
2. Entrepreneurial readiness, is about promoting comprehension and the application of
concepts and skills and develops recognition of personal venture opportunities.
3. Entrepreneurial application, which applies advanced skills to the planning and preparation
for implementing a personal business venture.
The components of the ideal structure include the following: a knowledge base supporting
a focus on attributes and skills as well as tasks, an element of concrete experience derived
from active participation through projects and the like, and content directed to stage of
venture development and emphasising functional integration. Thus following Hannon’s
point, (1998) that entrepreneurial learning processes should be embedded in an adaptive
environment.
What we do at Aberdeen
Aberdeen University is an old traditional university, with the implications of the
associated cultural ramifications. For example, we do not have a Business School but instead
a department of Management Studies. There is a “hesitancy” about the value associated with
teaching a vocational subject. (However this is in spite of teaching medicine, law and divinity
for centuries!) We have had to work hard to convince our colleagues, particularly outside our
own faculty of the value and appropriateness of our courses. This said many other faculties
9
now share our enthusiasms. We teach entrepreneurship to Bio-medic PhDs; Pharmacologists;
Environmental Scientists and Zoologists. Next year we are to have final year medicine
students for a four week block of enterprise.
We realise the limitations of our own experience, although two of our lectures run
small businesses. We attempt to bridge this gap between theory and entrepreneurial practice
using a number of techniques. To compensate we capitalise on rich external sources of
entrepreneurial experience. We have many visiting entrepreneurs; we advise students on
research in small business and encourage students to engage with small business and
entrepreneurs at every opportunity. At the same time we attempt to build theory into every
learning activity as a critical framework, aiming to develop the students understanding of
entrepreneurship.
The Centre for Entrepreneurship, part of the Department of Management Studies,
primarily offer courses in entrepreneurship to students at both undergraduate and postgraduate
level. Within their degree students can opt to do the following courses:
• Enterprise Creation 1 and 2 - We have a portfolio of Scottish and international
entrepreneurial case studies and other teaching materials. Through analysis of these cases
and associated exercises students learn, individually and in groups, to integrate knowledge
and skills required to identify, plan and seize a business opportunity. The development of
oral and written communication skills through preparation and presentation of project and
business plans is also a central focus of these courses. Entrepreneurs are invited into the
classroom to share their experiences and students are also directed towards a resource
room to investigate companies, successful small business development and entrepreneurial
opportunities. The key mechanism of learning is the development of a viable business
plan. Importantly it is the process of producing the plan, using the acquired knowledge,
which is central to these courses.
• Conceptual Approaches to Enterprise - The course provides students with the
background theory necessary for understanding the field of entrepreneurship. It looks at a
variety of theories of entrerpeneurship: sociological, cultural, anthropological, economic,
political and psychological. Students learn, discuss and critically evaluate these theories.
One focus is to question the feasibility of a single theory to account for and to explain
entrerpeneurship. The purpose of this course is to increase the awareness of the students to
entrepreneurship but also to raise their critical analysis skills. Students should be able to
recognise, and explain patterns of entrepreneurship and have some understanding of why
these have arisen.
• Business Development - This course involves analysing the problems of growing
businesses and the issues which the entrepreneur is likely to encounter. Case studies,
specially researched in the Scottish context are used. Most of these cases focus upon the
recent experience of Scottish companies in a range of sectors. Students are invited to
compare and contrast these case studies. Entrepreneurs, often those who feature in the
cases, are also invited into the class room to share their experiences. This provides the
student with the opportunity to question them directly and to use the knowledge they have
acquired directly and in a critical and analytic manner.
• Smaller Business - At the MBA level we also teach an elective whose focus is rather
different, an appreciation of SME’s. This a post experience course so that the students who
choose to do this elective have considerable commercial experience, although not always
in small business. We did not expect many potential entrepreneurs to select this as an
elective whose objective was to make students aware that SMEs are different from larger
organisations. However we were delighted that some of our group had their own business
and many were considering at as a career option. Their experiences provided an excellent
framework for the critical analysis of cases and theory.
10
• Enterprise for Scientists - This is new course which is intended for post graduates who
have no management background. The ethos is to raise entrepreneurial awareness, to
encourage them to think about an entrepreneurial career. Interestingly this course has
become quite popular despite the initial reluctance and misgivings of many of the students.
In particular the PhD students wondered about its relevance to their careers but after the
delivery of the course they reported satisfaction and saw the value.
We are also involved in a number of other activities which help to promote
entrepreneurship to both our student population and the outside business community.
These include:
• Mentoring - the mentoring programme which has been established has two related
aspects. The first role is to provide academic support by an identified experienced
academic. The second role, which we see as being innovative, is to complement the
conventional academic learning with the business experience of our entrepreneurial
mentors (for a fuller account of mentoring at the University of Aberdeen see Anderson,
Kirkwood and J ack (1998)). Thus our entrepreneurial mentors provide real life experience
to complement, ( or indeed to contradict!) our theory.
• Steering committee - the entrepreneurship programmes offered have been developed and
designed in conjunction with a steering committee which consists of academics and
members of the local business community. This body is involved with many aspects of
what we offer and encourage the development of entrepreneurship from a commercial
perspective.
• “Talking heads” - we invite members of the local business community to talk to our
students, staff from the local enterprise companies and encourage them to engage in debate
about entrepreneurship. Again this provides “experience” of live situations, and sometimes
it also acts to provide inspirational role models.
• We hold an entrepreneurship dinner once a year. This provides a relaxed forum for
discussion and the exchange of ideas. Our guests, or rather our sponsor’s guests, since they
pay for the dinner, include enterprise and non enterprise students, our mentors, the steering
committee and the management faculty.
• Presentations - students are invited to present their work throughout all the courses
offered by the Centre for Entrepreneurship. Initially this is to staff, but the best groups
present to commercial judges in competition for a number of prizes.
Problems
Some of the we have encountered are:
• There is a lack of good business ideas and a tendency for low skill, low barrier to entry
ideas to be proposed. This suggests that we have to find some way to make our students
think beyond the more obvious ideas.
• Additionally, we have found that there is a vast amount of work required to generate a
viable business plan. However, if the students are motivated and enthused they seem to
accept this happily.
• Another issue is that we have few ways of testing the effectiveness and efficiency of what
we teach. We can measure entrepreneurial awareness and test student’s knowledge and
find out about their satisfaction with our courses. However we have not yet been able to
establish the long term outcomes.
• It can also be difficult to realistically evaluate business plans. We have rely on the
surrogate academia evaluation, although our increasing experience is proving helpful.
• Within academia and the old university system we have found it difficult to persuade
people about the value of vocational courses, particularly since we teach the study of
11
management and not business. However, other faculties have invited us to teach their
students, particularly those who are building and developing a job focus into their courses.
• The matching process of mentors and students can be problematic. Sometimes we find that
students are intimidated by the high profile of their mentor and fail to make full use of the
experience. In other occasions we have found students who claim to be too busy to make
sufficient contact with their mentor. We recently conducted a study and have put in place
plans to help correct these difficulties.
Successes
The entrepreneurship courses have been experiencing growing numbers which must be
a measure of success. We are reaching science and medical students and being invited to
teach courses to other disciplines. Student satisfaction with the courses taught is high.
However we feel that we must continue to monitor the success of these courses, especially the
long term benefits for students. Our steering committee seem satisfied with progress and we
are never short of dinner guests!
References:
Aldrich, H., Zimmer, C., 1986, “Entrepreneurship through Social Networks”, in Sexton, D.L.,
Smilor, R.W., eds., “The Art and Science of Entrerpeneurship”, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA
Anderson A.R., Kirkwood, S. J ack, S.L., 1998, “Teaching Entrepreneurship: a mentoring
experience”, a paper presented at the Babson Conference, Belgium
Anderson, A.R. 1995, “Enterprise in Arcadia” unpublished PhD thesis, University of Stirling,
Stirling
Baudelaire., C., 1981, “Selected writings on Art and Artists”, London
Baumol, W.J ., 1983, “Towards Operational Models of Entrepreneurship”, in Ronen, J . Ed.,
“Entrepreneurship”, Lexington Books, Lexington
Birch, D.L., 1979 , “The job generation process”, MIT study on neighbourhood and regional
change, MIT, Boston
Braverman H.,1974 “Labor and Monopoly Capitalism” New York
Bradbury, M., McFarlane, J ., 1976, “Modernism, 1890-1930”, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Burrows, R., 1991, “A Sociological Anatomy of the Petty Bourgeoise”, Burrows, R Curran, J .,
eds.,”Deciphering the Enterprise Culture”, Routledge, London
Cannon, T., 1991, “Enterprise:Creation, development and Growth”, Butterworth-Heinneman,
Oxford
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, (1990), “Scholarship reconsidered-
Priorities of the Professoriate”, Washington
Carr P., 1997 “The Cultural Production of Enterprise: Understanding Selectivity as Cultural
Policy” Paper presented to the 2nd Irish Entrerpeneurship Research Conference, Belfast
Casson M., 1995, “ Entrepreneurship and Business Culture: Studies in the Economics
of Trust” vol 1. Edward Elgar, Aldershot
Chia, R., 1996 “ Teaching Paradigm Shifting in Management Education: University Business
Schools and the Entrepreneurial Imagination”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 33, no.
4, p409-428
Curran, J ., Burrows, R., 1987, “The Social Analysis of Small Business: Some Emerging
Themes”, In Goffe and Scase, eds.
12
Curran J ., 1986, “Bolton 15 years on: A Review and Analysis of Small Business Research in
Britain 1971-1986”, Small Business Research Trust, London
Drucker, P., 1985, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship” Butterworth Heineman, Oxford
Eagleton T., 1991, “Ideology” Verso, London
Engelgwall L., 1982, “Mercury meets Minerva”, Pergammon Press, Oxford
Fitzgerald R., 1993 “Industrial Training and Mangement Education in Britain: A Missing
Dimension” in “Education and Training in the Development of Modern Corporations” eds.
Kawabe N., Daito N, University of Tokio Press, Tokio
Freel, M. S., “Policy, prediction and growth: Picking winners?”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, vol 5, no.1,p.19-32.
Gallup Organisation And National Center For Research In Economic Education, 1994,
“Entrepreneurship and Small business in the United States: A Survey Report on the Views
of the General Public, High School Students, and Small Business Owners and Managers”,
Kansas City, MO
George C.S., 1968 “The History of Mangement Thought” Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs,
N.J .
Gibb A.A., 1996, “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management: Can we afford to
neglect them in the Twenty-first century Business School”, British Academy of
Management J ournal, p309-321
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., King, W.,1997, “Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship
Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-
year Literature Review”, International Small Business J ournal, Vol. 15, No. 3, p56 (22).
Goss., D., 1991, “Small Business and Society”, Routledge, London
Hannon P.D., 1998, “Who are the real educators and learners? – Re-thinking the role of
University Business Schools in entrepreneurial approaches to small firmlearning and
development” paper to be presented at the Enterprise and Learning Conference, University
of Aberdeen, September
Harvey, D., 1989, “ The Condition of Post-modernity” Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Hynes, B., 1996, “Entrepreneurship Education and Training - Introducing Entrepreneurship
into Non-Business Disciplines.”, J ournal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20, No. 8,
p10(8)
Hyrsky, K., Ali, A.A.,1996, “The Rocky Road of Immigrant and Ethnic Business in Finland”.
Paper presented at the 2nd Irish Entrepreneurship Conference, Belfast, November.
J ohannison, B., 1987, “Entreprenurship in a Corporatist State: The Case of Sweden” In Goffe
R., Scase, R., eds, “ Entrepreneurship in Europe”, Croom Helm, London
J ohannison, B., 1992, “ In Search of a Methodology for Entrepreneurship research”,
unpublished draft circulated at RENT VII, November.
J ohnston, D., Pere-Verge, L., 1993 “Attitudes towards graduate employment in the SME
sector”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, no 5, p 85-97
Katz J . 1991 “The Institution and Infrastructure of Entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Spring 1991 p85-102
Keats R., Abercrombie N., (1991) eds. “Enterprise Culture” Routledge, London
Koestler, A., 1964, “ The Act of Creation”, Hutchinson, London
Livesay, H.H., 1982, “Entrepreneurial History” in Kent et al, eds.,
13
Locke R.R., 1993, “Higher Education and Management: Their Relational Changes in the
20th Century”, in “Education and Training in the Development of Modern Corporations”
eds. Kawabe N., Daito N, University of Tokio Press, Tokio
Mason C., 1998 “Teaching Entrepreneurship toUndergraduates: A New Rationale” a paper to
be presented at the Conference on Enterprise and Learning, September, University of
Aberdeen, Aberdeen
McDougall, M., Beattie, R.S.,1997, “ Peer Mentoring At Work: the Nature and Outcomes of
Non-hierarchical Developmental Relationships”, Management Learning, Vol. 28, No. 4,
pp423-437.
Macfarlane B., 1998, “Refugees, Nomads and Tourists: An Anatomy of Business and
Management lecturers in Higher Education”, J ournal of European Business Education,
vol.7 No. 2 May, p37-44
Mintzberg H., 1994, “Re-engineering the Business School” in M.L. International Newsletter,
1, J une, p 24-25
Nelson D 1993, “ The Transformation of American Business Education” in “Education and
Training in the Development of Modern Corporations” eds. Kawabe N., Daito N,
University of Tokio Press, Tokio
Nisber, R., 1966, 1970, “ The Sociological tradition”, Heineman, London
Pietrasinski, Z., 1969, “The Art of Learning”. Warsaw, Pergamon Press
Porter L.W., McKibben L.E., (1988) “Management Education and Development: Drift or
Thrust into the 21st century”, Mcgraw Hill, New York
Robinson P. Haynes M.,1991 “Entrepreneurship Education in America’s Major Universitites”
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice” Spring 1991 p41-67
Ronstadt R., 1990, “Contributing Editor’s Feature” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”
Winter 1990 p79
Rosa, P.,1992, “Entrepreneurial Training in the UK: Past Confusion and Future Promise”
Conference Paper Series 81/92, University of Stirling, Stirling
Roure, J ., 1997, “ Ten Myths about Entrepreneurs”, in Birley, S., Muzyka D. F., “Mastering
Enterprise” FT Pitman Publishing, London
Ryle G 1963 “The Concept of th Mind” Penguin Harmondsworth
Scott, M.G., Anderson, A.R., 1994, "Entreprenology: The Study of the Creation and
Extraction of Value from an Environment", A paper presented at the 14th Babson
Entrepreneurial Conference at Wellesley MA
Schumacher, A., 1973, “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered”, , Bland and
Briggs, London
Shackle G.S.L., 1979 “Imagination and the Nature of Choice” Edinburgh University Press
Edinburgh
Simon H.A., 1976, “Administrative Behaviour” Collier-Macmillan, New York
Solomon G.T. Fernald W., 1991, “Trends in Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship Education inthe United States” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”
Spring 1991 p25-39
Stanworth, J ., Curran, J .,1973, “Management Motivation in the Smaller Business”, London,
Gower Press.
Storey, D.J ., 1994, “Understanding the Small Business Sector”, International Thomson
Business Press, London
14
Tan, W.L., Tan, L.K., Tan, W.H., Wong, S.C., 1995, “Entrepreneurial Spirit amongst tertiary
students in Singapore”, J ournal of Enterprise Culture, vol. 3, no.2, pp211-227
Timmons, J .A.,1994, “New Venture Creation” Fourth Edition Irwin, Illinois
Vesper, K.H., McMullan, W.E., Ray, D.M., 1989,. “Entrepreneurship Education: More Than
J ust an Adjustment to Management Education.” International Small Business J ournal, Vol.
8, No. 1, PP61-65.
Waldinger, R., Aldrich, H., Ward, R., 1990, (eds.), “Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Immigrant
Business in Industrial Societies”. London, Sage Publications
Warren, D., 1980, “Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism”, New Left Books, London
Weihe H.J ., Reiche F., 1993, reprinted 1997, “Entrepreneurship Interest among business
students: Results of an international survey” in Klandt, H., ed., “Entrepreneurship and
Business Development”, Avebury, Hants.
Wojhan E., 1986, “Class acts”, INC , p126-132
Young J .E., 1997, “Entrerpeneurship Education and Learning for University Students and
Practising Entrepreneurs” in “Entrepreneurship 2000 eds. Sexton D.L., Smilor R.W.,
Upstart Publishing, Chicago
doc_794424595.pdf